> <http://www.ipjur.com/03.php3> > <http://www.ipjur.com/2004_03_01_archive.php3#107928689748417100> > > FFII Advisor Dr. Karl-Friedrich Lenz on certain Aspects of Patent > Law.
... > Mr. Karl-Friedrich Lenz, Law Professor at the Aoyama Gakuin > University in Tokyo, has decided to provide a comment on my earlier > posting on the removal of a certain US Patent from the public on-line > patent database mainatined by the U.S. Patent and Trade Mark Office > (USPTO). Dr. Lenz writes: > > "[...] On the other hand, Axel H. Horns might be right in commenting > that the basic social contract behind the patent system is granting a > temporary monopoly in exchange for public information. That would > mean that the very fundaments of the patent system require that every > lunatic on the planet is served by the Patent Office with information > about how to use ricin for the next large scale attack. > > That in turn would seem to lead to an excellent argument for > wholesale abolition of the patent system, if anybody should get > inclined to call for such abolition, for example as a reaction to the > mess caused by software patents. > > "Look! The patent office is helping terrorists to develop their WMD > ability! And we can't even stop that without compromising the basic > social contract the patent system is built on." Ich kenne den Kontext nicht, k�nnte mir aber vorstellen, dass es hier um Art 53 EP� (Beschr�nkungen der Patentierbarkeit aufgrund von Sittenwidrigkeit / Gef�hrdung �ffentlicher Ordnung) u.�., einschlie�lich Geheimpatente im Falle milit�risch relevanter Erfindungen, geht. F�r solche Konflikte gibt es freilich l�ngst L�sungen, die keine Abschaffung des Patentwesens erfordern, z.B. Geheimpatente im milit�rischen Bereich (meist in Kombination mit Zwangslizenzen). > The above-quoted comments provided by Dr. Lenz are interesting all the > more as he surely can be seen as an influencial adivsor of Mr. Pilch, > President of the FFII e.V. So it is not very much surprising that Dr. > Lenz considers public anxieties against mis-use of technology as a > "strong argument" to harm the patent system even if he serves some > lip-service to assure that he is interested in preserving a free > Internet. Effectively, there are strange parallels between the position > of this advisor to the FFII e.V. and proposals coming from another side > as already reported in my earlier posting there. Welche "andere Seite" ist hier gemeint? Trotz ihrer Verschrobenheit macht mich diese Diskussion neugierig. Und mein unterstellter pr�sidialer Einfluss l�sst mich schmunzeln. -- Hartmut Pilch, FFII e.V. und Eurolinux-Allianz +49-89-18979927 300.000 Stimmen 2000 Firmen gegen Logikpatente http://noepatents.org/ Innovation statt Patentinflation http://swpat.ffii.org/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
