Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: UK Leading Patents?

[MJ Ray]

PILCH Hartmut <address@hidden> wrote:
>[Alex wrote:]
> You get a patent on the way to lay out the circuitry, if that is
> inventive, not for the logical functionality.  [...]

I don't think such patents should be granted unless there are new materials
or manufacturing being used.  The process itself is not patentable.

> Patents are supposed to encourage innovation by circumvention.

I thought patents were supposed to guarantee a return from the original
invention for the inventor, by granting a limited monopoly.

>> You haven't proven it's a good concept for the UK at all. We have an
>> entirely different legal system here. You're asking for our history of
>> patent judgements, the body of case law and the raft of interleaved
>> measures to be thrown out. That's not going to happen. If it did, we
>> would be in a greater mess than we are currently.

Alex, it probably will happen.  There is some evidence that pro-patent
groups are lobbying for it to happen.  The body of case law being
jettisonned is a frequent occurance, as it helps to simplify the legal
processes.  Whether our best position is to press for the current imperfect
situation or a clarification in our favour (thereby supporting the rewrite
lobby in one way) is an interesting question.

> If the UK wants to rely on its caselaw anyway, then what's the point in
> talking about european regulation ?

I wonder sometimes why the experience of the case law-based countries is not
used more when drafting European regulation.  Many of the problems which
occur later in EU rules have previously been seen in case law.

> UKPTO clearly is not an institution designed to keep the patent systme
> within limits, just as the army is not an institution designed to promote
> disarmament.  [...]

The army is in support of disarmament, as long as it's the other guys ;-)

-- 
MJR