Re: [Fsfe-uk] Software patents

[Bernhard Kaindl]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Ramanan Selvaratnam wrote:
>
> >has ideas for a suitable response, please let me know.
> >
> This is not a suitable response but I feel more explanations with
> examples are needed than repetetive chanting in circles.

At least it's not an very individual, personal response.
It's all copy and past from McCarty's note about the proposal.

> >************************
> >The patenting of computer-implemented inventions
> >
> What's this?  I have heard it so many times that it makes me wonder 'is
> there one single source who put this on these pro-software patents people'?

As said, copy and paste, rebuttal with Lyx source, LaTeX, txt and so on at:
http://www.tinet.org/~xdrudis/Patents/aboutMcCarthyConsiderations.html

> >is not a new phenomenon:
> >
> ?!

Xavi says about it:

It may well be that patents involving the use of software have been granted
since the earliest days of the European Patent Office. They certainly weren't
called "computer-implemented inventions", though. This term was introduced in
2000 by the EPO[1]. In EPO's youth it was clear that an invention could not be
"implemented" in a computer.

-> (read Xavi's page further) -> There is an important differnece between
patents which involve the use of software and the patenting of the so-called
"computer-implemented" inventions.

> >The aim of the proposal going through the European Parliament is to harmonise
> >and clarify the law, to stop the expansion of the patents system, and stem
> >the current drift towards broadening the scope of innovation in software that
> >can be patented.
> >
> There is no such practice of patenting software (by law) in europe or
> most of this planet.
> Please let me know if I am wrong .

It depends on your perspecive, if you are in the US then not... ;-)

> >There is a need to ensure that patents for
> >computer-implemented inventions
> >
> not again!!

Read the directive, you read even more strange stuff in it, you'll
get mad if you read it...

> >are granted on the same footing across the
> >European Union and that national courts can deal with contested patents on
> >the basis of uniform principles and within an EU legal framework.
> >
> So the concern now is to make it easy for the law.
> So dammit! Do not introduce software patents!!! The law works smoothly
> without such complications, already ...does it not?

The pro-swpat lobbyists have told all the people that copyright only
protects identical copies and not modified copies(which is wrong) and
so they said patents are needed to fight piracy...

We have to explain to them that they have been wrongly informed and
that copyright is enought(and explain the problems of independent
creation with patents, which you do not have with -> copyright)

> If the EPO had made mistakes accept it, make amends and everything is
> nice and easy.

This directive does not affict the EPO, not at all, the McCarthy told
it herself, if I remember correctly. The reason is that the EPO stands
free, independent of law.

It can interpret any law as it likes. To get the EPO in line, you have
to change the rules which apply to the EPO.

E.g. IHMO, the EPO should face substantinal damages if a patent which
it granted is nullified. (and the money needs to go to the suing party).

> Are all 16 000 'computer implemented technologies'  that have been
> granted patents, under threat if software patenting proposals are scrapped?

That's another good question to ask MEPs.

> One should be happy if they do not get affected as we have not wasted
> some public money. If the opposite is true still there is plenty of room
> to be happy as a major wastage of public funding (on law) and
> destruction of  sustainable  technology development opportunities would
> have been averted.

I've seen a number of 1.5 billion euro which goes into patent searches
every year... (not public money, I think, and I think this is only EPO,
not national patent offices included)

Bernhard