On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 04:23:30PM +0000, simo wrote: > > Software patents are invalid in Europe so... > > They should be, yes, but that can only be established for each patent in > front of a court.
Nopes. Art. 52.2, and most countries legislation clearly exclude software patents. That has been established. Let them sue, in Europe, and get their patents nullified by court. The problem is: * going to court is costly and uncertain * nulifing patent by patent is idiotic Also, EC has no duty promoting an illegal point of view. > > I am not so confident as you are in the wording. > > Well, who sign the agreement need to be concerned about the wording, > unless you are thinking of signing an agreement with the PFIF to get > access to the documentation it doesn't really matter if you are > confident or not. > > At most the single developer that sign the agreement is screwed. > > I am pleased you are concerned with Samba Developers future, but I guess > we can manage to understand, get professional legal counsel, and decide > on our career by ourselves :-) Actually, I'm more concerned with the lack of response to the patent issue, which legitimises Microsoft's software patents. > > > > > > The EU is happy-happy joy-joy[1] about the whole charade where it > > > > > > has granted Microsoft the right to demand royalties for it's > > > > > > software > > > > > > patents to Free Software users. > > > > > > > > > > The EU has no such granting power, patent law allows Microsoft to ask > > > > > for royalties. > > > > > > > > And EC recognises software patents, Q.E.D. > > > > > > Well this is your mantra, not mine, I guess we just disagree here, time > > > will tell. > > > > Oh really? Counter with facts please: > > > * EC or even CoJ can't affect juridisctions outside EU, namely the USA. > > They do not affect jurisdictions, that's why they can't rule patents > invalid, Neiter rule them valid, like they did, by acknowledging them. > The only option for MS to not stick to the agreement and avoid fines is > to exit completely the EU market. You may understand this is a very > compelling reason to agrre with the EU on how to license stuff > worldwide. EC wasted the opportunity. Microsoft would cave in rather than loose the European market. > > * EC or even CoJ can affect the juridisction of European Union. > > The EC can't, the EC can propose directives that need to be approved by > the parliament and the council. The EC can execute according to > directives, that's the main job of the EC. > The CoJ can resolve issues and enforce European law, but nothing more. > > > * Software patents are against the letter of the law > > I believe this to be true. But you know very well it is not so clear cut > you can assert it easily at legal and political levels. It's more > complex than that. By the contrary, it is quite a clear cut. It actually is even a violation of TRIPS[1] and the Geneva Convention[2]. It is a violation of Art. 52.2 EPC[3]. It is a clear cut. It only isn't a clear cut when you have the interest of curbing the meaning the the law[4]. [1] which redirects the software case to the Geneva Convention [2] which says software is a literary work [3] which clearly excludes patents on software [4] when you try to pretend "as such" could mean that software is a self sustained entity > > > patents on the table and the EC options were around how to make MS > > > license them. > > > > => recognising => legitimizing them > > repeating your mantra will not necessarily make it more true, or > relevant ... try telling me something new, I got your position already. > > > > Ignoring them would have meant leaving MS carte-blanche on how to > > > license them. > > > > I didn't say ignore. It should outright exclude them in the valid > > jurisdisction. > > ? YANAL right ? Exclude them from the results. They don't matter at all. They can't consider as acknowledgeable something which is agains the law. > > > > > I can't see this big patent problem you see, the fact that a certain > > > > > part of the establishment is ok with software patents is not new at > > > > > all, > > > > > we all know that. > > > > > I honestly don't think this case changes any balance in that respect. > > > > > > > > Of course not, other than EC recognising software patents, its virtually > > > > unfelt by Microsoft. > > > > > > So the EC was previously not recognizing them and now it does? > > > > It is you who claim that. I don't claim that *anywhere*. In fact I claim > > they legitimise them. > > > > I don't understand how you can give such a blind-folded benefit of > > doubt. > > Don't think I am pro software patents, but the situation is more complex > than the simple statement you keep repeating. I don't think that. Not at all. > What I am saying is: the EC is not a single body, there are many people > with different political views in there, but it is true that in general > it has been pro-software patents in the past. And present. They are not deserving a benefit of doubt. > What I think is: I see absolutely no difference after this ruling wrt EC > stance on software patents, therefore I don't think their position on > this point is a big deal or changes the landscape in any sensible way. > > I just think you are pumping up way too much a legitimate concern, but a > very minor one in the specific case. What, that they legitimise Microsoft's software patents and FSF Europe stays quiet? Something should have been said. Rui -- P'tang! Today is Pungenday, the 8th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
