Re: [Patents] O'Reilly DevCenter: Perspective on Software Patents in Europe

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

pelegrin@labri.fr wrote:
> 
> Selon Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>:
> > I never use the term "CII patents," though I use the term "CII
> > Directive" despite the fact that the actual name of the thing is
> > "Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented
> > Inventions."  :-)
> >
> > You're mouthing general principles to a pretty careful and
> > skilled practitioner.  It's a useless exercise.  I'd hate to
> > actually make a mistake!  The certainly important thing, that we
> > all see clearly, is to be sure to emphasize the contradiction
> > between the title and what the Directive accomplishes.
> 
> Well, the title is not contradictory, but wilfully confusing...
> What a computer implements is nothing than computer programs,
> so this directive is really about patents on computer programs.


That's the contradiction.  The movement has done a wonderful job
exposing that, but it's not done.  It's still a highly important
contradiction right now, just it was when the Directive was first
presented.

Incredible pains were taken when the Directive was first
presented to the EP, to get it passed by presenting it as only
patenting "CII's" and not "pure software."

The idea of patenting software was the one thing that was
verboten when the Directive was introduced.  Keeping it true that
a Directive for patenting software is a bad thing, is still
something we're working on.  We are essentially working to
prevent the opposite outcome (a world where coding is either
strictly a hobby or strictly something you do working for large
companies).

The right line is that the title is designed to convey an idea
that hides its contradictory actual purpose.  Some may choose to
simply call it the "software patent directive."  Some may choose
to keep on the task of showing the deceptions in the way the
Directive is presented.  Just as there are defects in the
uncritical use of the term "CII," simply requiring that it be
called the "software patent directive" also has its defects and
is just too simple.


Seth



> A way for the pro-swpat lobby to say afterwards to suckers who
> thought that the directive could only be used to patent washing
> machines : "Ha! You don't understand technology!".
> So since calling an animal with four legs and which does "meow"
> is an unambiguous shortcut, let us call this directive the
> "software patents directive".
> As Florian Mueller recalled, even the pro-patent side had Freudian
> slips and talked about software patents. So...
> 
>                              f.p.

-- 

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.