That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[Simo Sorce]

On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:20, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> If the solution is different, it's not covered by the claim.
> The fact that the solution is in software does not make the
> solution different.

It seem that you change the meaning of solution to accomodate your view,
that's unfair. You just used the term "solution in software" to say it
is different than the solution in hardware, so my logic say they are 2
different solutions for the same problem. Then you say the the fact that
things are made in a different way "does not make the solution
different" ... there's something wrong in the way you think, to me it
seem that you live in contradiction with you own ideas.

> > By the way if it is "simple", then probably the "competent" patent
> > attorney has already covered it, hasn't she?
> 
> True, but according to you the software variation should be
> excluded from my patent even if I mention it in the patent.

You shouldn't be able to mention it in the patent if you haven't
realized it and give a detailed explanation on to how implement it.
Otherwise you are contradicting the basic principle of patents that is
the disclosure of the information to be able to build what you patent.
That's another thing that make current software patents not only bad but
also invalid to my eyes as there never is the hard work eg. the code, no
disclosure.

> > But the problem is exactly in this statement:
> > "This is unfair to patent holders"
> > 
> > Patents are not here to make patent holders a living or made them rich,
> > they are there to promote innovation when this method is more a benefit
> > for the community then the economical and ethical damages it can make.
> 
> And how do you think they promote innovation? By providing
> a fair amount of protection so inventors are encouraged to
> do innovative research. If a minor variation is enough to
> get around my patent, I'm not going to bother inventing.

This is in contradiction with facts, software has not been covered by
patents for a long time here and innovation had a costant increasing
rate. To me this means there is no need for software patents, and as
monopolies are yet a problem in this field allowing new monopolies to be
made is just crazy and Europe will suffer a lot from that.
Not saying that software is one of the frontiers of human development
and letting foreign companies to colonize us through their already
granted patents (in USA and Japan) is just *suicide* for European
economy. We are going to kill all our research and send all our earnings
on manufactured products overseas to pay royalties ... totally crazy.

regards,
Simo.
-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20021217/efa9564a/attachment.sig>