"Dermot McGahon" wrote:
> > two key loopholes: [...]the terms "as such" and "technical effects"
> Their interpretation. Others are possible, and imho, more likely.
As long as one possible interpretation allows software to be patented,
software will be patented. There are 25 patent offices in the EU where a
patent can be applied for. The offices that approve the application get
paid. They have every reason to find a way to sell another patent.
> > those two textual loopholes [...] really do obfuscate the issue quite
> > effectively :(
>> I'm not sure that they do. We're guessing on interpretation.
The EPO has already granted 30,000 software patents. We don't get to pick
the interpretation - the broadest interpretation is the one that gets used.
MS and IBM are paying multi-[bm]illion dollar legal teams to write these
patent applications and to argue their court cases.
> The key phrase (if we're picking phrases, instead of reading whole
> context as we should, and as any judge worth his salt would)
By the time it gets to Judge stage, any free software developer is screwed
long ago. We have to make it impossible for any patent examiner to sell a
software patent - that's the only option we have.
> My interpretation of this is that
--
Ciarán O'Riordan
http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/
Irish Free Software Organisation: http://ifso.ie
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
