> No offence, but DUH!!! Of course a patent attorney is going to say that this > law is all hunky-dory, it's his future bread and butter!!!
Well, actually no. Her firm does not take work of this kind and as such is unbiassed in this matter. On the other hand they are fully informed as to what is going on, and why. And yes, I have looked at both sides of the argument, read Groklaw, etc, have you? > The ambiguous wording of the CIID opens the back door for pure > software patents, and there is a whole saga going on with the European > Parliament at loggerheads with the European Commission over amendments and > procedure. The CIID may well be ambiguously worded, but that's no different to any other bit of law. The exisitance of a truely unambiguous piece of law is a myth. It's final meaning will only be defined following a set of test cases. The European Patent Office has no intention of changing how software is currently treated, test cases will quickly confirm this position. > I suggest you head over to www.groklaw.net for a thorough and > informative view of what's going on. It may (debatably) be biased the other > way, but at least you'd have both sides of the argument. Really! Would you > ask a fox to guard the chicken coop? You're right, Groklaw is biased the other way. Personally I consider a patent attorney with no personnel or financial involvement in this area to be about as unbiassed and well informed as you'll find. > Wrong! Tell "_no_ material impact" to all the small and medium business (the > ones that usually drive innovation) that will be driven out of business by > this law. > > Innovation through litigation? Don't believe everything you read at Groklaw. The purpose of this directive is to _stop_ some countries in the EU that have been pushing software patents through the back doors and loop holes that currently exist. Steve _______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [email protected] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
