On Sunday 20 March 2005 13:58, Paul Jakma wrote:
> (ie, dont extend the scope of a broken system until the
> system is fixed)?
Well, that is my attitude in the immediate fight against software patent
monopoly grant, a tactical delay of extension of the scope of patenting.
It looks to me like patenting is following the law of bureaucracy and
never decreasing.*
But importantly, I consider "fixing" the system entire to require
nothing less than my compromise position:
patents only enforceable against patent holders.
*As a recent report on groklaw from one of the UKPO
forced-choice-on-meaning-of-technical-contribution meetings
says:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050319124156532
"""
A member of the UKPO staff expressed the opinion that some examiners in
the European Patent Office had awarded a small number of patents they
should not have done, and that an aim of the Directive was to stop
this, although he didn't say whether the Directive should invalidate
these patents. He also commented that making all software unpatentable
would invalidate a large body of existing patents, which was (he
implied) out of the question. I felt the implication of these remarks
was that patent law could only ever progress in one direction: greater
patentability.
"""
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!
