FSF Europe & software patents

Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Sat May 19 16:40:49 UTC 2001

On Sat, May 19, 2001 at 05:59:29PM +0200, loic at gnu.org wrote:

> 	:-) Then you're a good candidate to proofread
> http://www.fsfeurope.org/swpat/swpat.en.html. Is it understandable ?

Though the different motivations for revising the patent systems
could elaborated more:

	* the current situation is unclear, the exclusion of
	computer programs has not really been used in legal
	arguments. So there is some confusion about what can be
	patented. It is legitimate to remedy that. Even Eurolinux
	will agree on this motive.

	* Patent lobbists claim that they just want on paper what
	is already done in courts. Eurolinux fears that such a
	revision will make it much easier to obtain patents of

	* (Some) politicians think that patent numbers are an indication of
	growth and competitiveness, they want to keep up with Japan
	and the USA.

	* patent proponents think that patents will improve
	innovation in all areas. Eurolinux thinks it will hinder
	innovation in the software area.

There are no serious studies showing that patents of software
are economically feasable. They argue the opposite.

(Well too verbose already and I am probably missing important
points anyway.)

> Does it clarify the situation ? 

I think that the status of the EPA is still not clear enough.
Calling it a private company is not adequat. I am not sure if the
EPA can make profit and they are bound by the contract, IIRC.

> Does the
> http://www.fsfeurope.org/swpat/patents.en.html timeline allows you to
> have an historical view of the situation ? 

Had no time to read through it. (-> too long? :) )
I am missing a visible time mark for expected and already occurred

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20010519/487e1e6c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Discussion mailing list