I disagree with the idea that opposition per se will bring about improvement.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Venkatesh Hariharan < [email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 12:05 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 16:09:33 Krithika wrote: >> > >> > The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is filing a pre-grant >> > opposition to a software patent application by Microsoft. >> >> Hence we should be opposing software patents not on terms of prior art >> or obviousness, but merely on the grounds of being bad practice by >> the patent office. > > > We must point this out to the patent office. I am also assuming that, if > efforts like that of CIS are successful in invalidating bad patents, it will > eventually change the evaluation procedures followed by the patent office > and reduce the chances of bad patents being granted. > > I recall when the patent office was being upgraded some 15-16 years back, the bulk of the funding came from abroad, by WIPO or its predecessor. Such organisations have as their prime motivation the objective of bring everything under the purview of patents. They are not interested in the smooth functioning of societies in countries like ours. The current inability of the office of patents and copyrights to process applications in a reasonable timeframe perhaps illustrates how sincere the modernisation effort was, in the first place. Ergo, I conclude it was a sham, conducted solely in order to lull the public into the belief that new rules brought new attitudes of efficiency with them. I would not be surprised to find that patents inspectors here are also accustomed to novel means of payments to either pass or hold back patent approvals. -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
