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

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 07:41, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> I don't want to tell you how to run your country, and I don't want you 
> to export your case law system to mine. I'm even starting to ask myself 
> why we are in the same political object (EU) if we are not going to let 
> each other have any say in any affair. 

We have say in each other's affairs, we just implement the ideas
differently. The reason I've persued this argument is because what you
and Hartmut have said is radically different to what information we
have. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere inbetween. Hartmut
obviously has close links to people in Brussels, and is influenced by
that point of view. I'm influenced by the information we have over here.

I think FFII's take on UK law isn't complete, because by ignoring our
case law they're essentially ignoring a lot of how decision making works
over here. We don't allow patenting of software like the USPTO - see D
Hutchins:  "CPR Computer Aiding" (GB 9713345.8), and some of the other
examples I gave - but, on the other hand, we don't have very much
information on how our officials work abroad (the EPO in particular
appears quite an opaque organisation). 

Please don't apologise - I personally have found a lot of this a useful
discussion. If I have been critical about people's ideas, it is only to
better understand them. The FFII's UK page is a lot different post
discussion than it was before, and I think a lot better for it. I would
have no hesitation in recommending people read it. And while we argue
about many of the details of patent law, in many ways it's a lot like
discussing what constitutes derivative work under the GNU GPL - with
modern linking systems and RPC mechanisms, that too can be a grey area.

I would also hope that people see UK patent law (and, by extension,
European patent law) as being very much on-topic for this list. At the
end of the day, we all agree that software should not be patented - and,
as much as I would argue over the implementation, at the end of the day
it's going to be people who know a lot more about how the law works than
I who would frame it. If the clearest and best method for deciding what
is and what is not patentable is dispositionsprogramm (well, the English
equivilent ;) then I would support it, and (without wanting to talk for
others on this list) I would think everyone else would support something
that ruled out software patents as well.

Criticising institutions is also a British sport. Our health service is
crap, the education system went to the dogs years ago, our police are
racist and rubbish and the Government is made up of either old Lords or
people who happen to be mates with Tony (Tony's Cronies :). But, if
anyone who _wasn't_ British criticised our great and esteemed
institutions, by jingo that's not cricket ;) We all suffer from that...

Cheers,

Alex.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part