Ciaran,
Ar 01.07.08 02:13, Scríobh Ciaran O'Riordan:
...but it doesn't have to be this way. Terms could be avoided altogether by just mentioning "problematic patents in the software field" and then giving a one-sentence explanation like "such as patents on how to display, store, or communicate data".
So what I'd like to ask is, do people think this would help, and can anyone suggest better wordings? Does that one-sentence explanation pretty much cover what we care about (without covering something we don't have a position on)?
I think there's a danger that this explanation could be twisted to claim that we're trying to block patents on display, storage and communication devices, which will almost certainly have a software or firmware element -- imagine a wireless digital photo frame with some novel aspects ( now patent it! ;). In such a case the software shouldn't be patentable but the device may be. If the device is patented as a whole the software elements shouldn't be enforceable.
The explanation should also cover "manipulation" or "processing" of data in general: we still care about algorithms.
How about "such as patents on software to display, process, store or communicate data"?
Hope this helps,
David