Hi Andy
Andy Farnell wrote:
I don't want to open up a lengthy OT debate here. But
will reply privately to address some of your points in detail.
Fair enough. I guess the main reason I bought into this conversation is that
I do feel like it's something that affects all of us here and I'm interested
in whether anyone has any suggestions about pragmatic ways to deal with the
issue since I feel a bit lost with it...
You can apply the above two points to the patent system as a whole, or
narrow them to apply only to software patents or some other subset.
This is the only issue for me. Patents for tangible products
make sense.
I don't understand why one makes sense and other other doesn't.
I don't really see a clear distinction between patenting (a) configurations
of molecules bound by physical laws and (b) configurations of logical and/or
electron routing patterns bound by logical/mathematical principles. Perhaps
it relates to Nigel's earlier point about the examiners not having any idea
of prior art nor sufficient background to assess things.
There is no case for software patents whatsoever.
You apparently don't agree with the commercial/economic/socionomic arguments
Nigel put forward then.
To even
entertain the idea is to completely debase the principles of patents
and shows massive ignorance of what patents are and of human values and
knowledge in general.
Ok, I'm definitely missing something big here.
It is the extention of patents to include
non-patentable things that is nothing short of a disater for humanity.
Not sure what your criteria for "non-patentable" is.
I don't know about patent reform as a whole, but I'd sure like those
pesky
patents on obvious things to go away. Does anyone know the most effective
way to lobby for reform in this area?
Yes. Whenever, wherever you see the topic of software patents discussed
you must speak up to denounce them and correct the misunderstandings of
those
who support them (often smart, well meaning but deceived people).
Ok, waiting for correction of my misunderstandings...
If your conscience extends to it then opposing genetic, chemical
business process and other inappropriate abstract patents won't hurt,
but it makes sense that those who are educated defend their respective
areas of intellectual expertise where they can argue reasonably and
forcefully.
I'd be interested to hear an example of an "appropriate patent" by your
standards. I'm not trying to take the piss here, just not at all clear on
where the line is to be drawn or what is causing you to make such clear cut
distinctions since I don't see any.
Is there are group that focuses on
calling for re-examination of obvious patents that I could support?
I don't know of any on that specific task of challenging existing bad
patents. I think that task is overwhelming now.
Setting up (or contributing to) an independently funded organisation that
challenges obviously bad software patents might still be a lot easier than
getting the system reformed.
If you look at the list on the right column of this page I think
you will realise we have no choice but to move for massive reform or
even abolition to remove whole swathes of the problem.
http://petition.eurolinux.org/
I find that page alarmist with insufficient legal argument to convince me of
anything. It just sounds like some kind of southpark "patents are bad
mmmkay" rant. The fact that it has a Linux affiliation and reads like Linux
developers are annoyed that they can't just code anything they like without
risking violating a patent doesn't help. The FAQs at the source link
(http://www.ffii.org/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20about%20software%20patents)
are simplistic and unconvicing (answer 2 ignores risks of exposing IP via
reverse engineering for example). Note that I am sympathetic to the authors
concerns, but I need them to be backed up by much stronger arguments (and I
suspect the lawmakers do too).
We live and work in a complex commercial and legal environment with many
relationships, constraints, regulations etc. Clamouring for some kind of
free-IP libre-utopia isn't realistic (just my point of view of course).
Perhaps you're right that massive reform is the path of least resistance but
I'm not holding out much hope. And besides, there are more important things
to worry about, like the fate of the Amazon rainforest.
Ross.
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
