That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[xdrudis at tinet.org]

I forgot to thank you for your article and say it is good and needed
overall, 
I think I must have sounded as just crticising, sorry.

> Well I rely on your superior wisdom for this.
>
I may be wrong. I would just know what happened in 1991 that I missed. 
 
> > You also say US companies hold almost all EPO swpats. I'm afraid I
> > misguided you in my previous mails. US companies hold 30 or 40 % of
> > all EPO sofware patents, Japanese comapnies hold another 30 or 40 %,
> > and the rest of the would some other 30% Check the details at
> > http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/swpatperled/index.en.html
> 
> Fraid the breakdowns by country don't work - page doesn't exist.
>
Sorry, 
http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/perled/
I used an old bookmark.almost 33% USA and 30% Japan

> Out of interest, how many EPO software patents are held by European 
> companies?
> 
Almost all the remaining 37%, I guess, like 11000 or so?
But this are estimations only, mind you. Software patents are not
classified as such as the EPO for easy counting. 

> 
> I didn't think I implied that - I clearly said "These patents cover 
> some of the most basic algorithms in software today and while you 
> might think they would be invalid because of prior art ..." - that 
> directly is speaking about the basic algorithms.
>
Fine, then I misread you. 
 
 
> > - Tell MEPs you want the specifc ammendments at 
> > http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/demands/prop
> > so as not to get confused in the sea of word games al legal 
> jargon Or
> > also, ask for a benchmark on any directive based on examples in the
> > horror gallery (this is already in the call for action)
> 
> Fraid that link doesn't work either.
> 
It wasn't my day with bookmarks 
http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/prop/index.en.html
Sorry.

> > - link to http://petition.eurolinux.org
> 
> This link never works for me. Rest of eurolinux is fine but not 
> that 
> particular one. BSA interference? ;)
>
I don't think so. Maybe maintenance or something ¿?¿?¿?¿?
 
> Thanks a lot for the info. The revised version should be done by 
> the 
> time you read this.
>
I'll try to read it tonight, but I wonder if it's necessary, it will 
surely be quite good.