That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[xdrudis at tinet.org]

> On 9 Dec 2002 at 20:49, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> 
> > You are correct. But I think it is wrong to say the EPO is
> > acting illegally, since they are within the boundaries of
> > the EPC to do what they do. Acting against the spirit of a
> > treaty is not illegal. 
> 
> For some reason, the legal profession has always eschewed 
> integration 
> of ethics, quite probably because half their work in side-stepping 
> the intent of laws would evaporate. However, in my opinion all law 
> should be subject not to its letter, but to its spirit and if we 
> could change that, the world would be a much better place for it.
>

I don't quite agree. I think the lawyers have a useful function 
of trying to defend the interest of each party and making the judge
decide. It's just some of the patent lawyers that abandon any rational 
thought and don't see the wood for the trees, with software patents. 
And the problem with the spirit of laws is that there is no guarantee 
that someone else will find the same spirit as you

And the vast majority simply have to get used to an environment where
all incentives are biased towards patent inflation. 
  Early in 2003, Software Patents are likely to become enforced 
> within 
> the EU, despite computer software being specifically exempted since 
> 1973 and repeated revisions of the guidelines since reinforcing 
> this 
> notion - unfortunately, the proposed reforms will introduce legal 
> loopholes big enough to permit effective work-arounds.  
> 
> How's this? Is it accurate?
>
No. The latest guidelines allow software patents (they something like 
when examining software you should not look whether it is technical 
and therefore patentable subject matter, just assume it is and go on 
with novelty and inventive step, I think). It was the 1978 guidelines 
that were good. 

I've written a correction in a mail that didn't get sent this morning 
and so will this afternoon/evening, sorry about that. 
 

> 
> I appreciate all that EuroLinux and the FFII have done, but could 
> it 
> not be argued a better approach is to say why the hell was this 
> stupidity with hardware allowed in the first place? I can't see 
> MPEG 
> patents benefiting society at all eg; MPEG2 players for Linux and 
> even MPEG2 players for Windows.
>

I think I answered that in my unsent mail, but maybe I don't understand
you. Eurolinux and the FFII have argued that this stupidity with 
fictious software patents is wrong, because they are software patents 
embodied in hardware, which should not make them patentable, it's still
a logical achievement.
 
> > > Most software patents, though are not such a cash cow. 
> > 
> > Most patents in general are not cash cows. 
> 
> Except for IBM, the pharmaceutical companies and a few others.
> 
I'm not sure. I think it is the number of patents, not a particular 
patent very cash producing. And fiscal evasion, and the like.