"Patents = Innovation" (was Re: [Fsfe-ie] CharlieMcCreevy)
seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org
Sun Aug 15 12:12:12 CEST 2004
This link mentions that Vivan Reding is in charge of the "Information
Society" dossier, which is interesting because apparently she is unfamiliar
with that area:
This presents an interesting question of what to do with her. I wonder if
this would mean she'll be guided by someone above her; that might be why
Barroso appointed her. Just speculation . . .
Obviously we should approach her as well.
Seth Johnson wrote:
> > I think we should start something where we get economic and political
> > analysts to comment on the uncritical use of the number of patents as an
> > indicator of innovation and research. We can target that analysis to
> > McCreevy.
> > These indicators are used by somebody in government. Who? Whatever they
> > use them for, can be subject to incisive criticism.
> What I'm talking about in the following is, we need to convey to the folks
> who devised the performance measures for the Lisbon Strategy, that simply
> counting "technology patents" as a measures of innovation, failing to make
> the distinction that SW patents establish a thoroughgoing constraint on
> innovation, is not going to work as an objective measure for the "voluntary"
> Lisbon Strategy. In describing the distinction and its implications, we may
> do well to play to Verheugen, and to the evident "balancing" between Michel
> and Mandelson. This is very important, because I believe it is this
> overarching strategy, and this measure in particular, which probably
> accounts for the implacable indifference of these folks to assertions of
> democratic principles of governance, as they pursue a "fact-based,"
> business-like approach to governance.
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
More information about the FSFE-IE