--- Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: Tim, I am aware of this sad development, though I did not read the article you have given. It is a bit tricky that a communist paper is the one that has put this forward, after all, a very rich man did say that FOSS thinking were communist ideas!
It is important for well recognised people in the Indian IT industry or here in SL should talk about it. But the ones here I contacted via email are strangely silent. Even those known to me have not replied my emails. Is there a strong enough opposition in Australia? Nandalal > > >Hi Tim, > > > >Thanks for the detailed answer and the link. I am > >really concerned about FOSS development/migration > in a > >country with such patent laws. Sri Lanka has not > got > >patent laws yset. Copyrights and IP foor software > was > >brought in recently - two years ago - before that > we > >were a pirate state - well we still are in a much > >smaller way :-) > > > >I hope we never have patent laws, but I doubt it. > > > > > That populous nation to your north-west has recently > introduced software > patents - for an excellent background article on > this unfortunate and > very ill-conceived legislative move see: > http://pd.cpim.org/2005/0130/01302005_snd.htm > > Tim C > > >>Unfortunately, patents on software algorithms and > >>business methods have > >>been granted here in Australia since 1990, and the > >>courts have upheld > >>some of these patents (but have struck out > others). > >>The only saving > >>grace is that the test for novelty was recently > made > >>more rigorous - now > >>an invention does not meet the test of novelty if > >>aspects of it have > >>been described previously but in separate > published > >>documents, and if > >>the combination of those components is obvious (to > >>someone "skilled in > >>the art"). In the past, an invention had to have > >>been described in its > >>entirety in one document to have been considered > >>"prior art" - now the > >>scope of prior art is much wider, which is a good > >>thing, and will > >>hopefully prevent many trivial software, algorithm > >>and business methods > >>patents which are just minor variations on a theme > >>from being granted, > >>or at worst, from being upheld in the courts. > >>However, the whole system > >>is still stacked ridiculously in favour of the > >>patent applicant. I was > >>shocked to learn that as a private citizen, in > order > >>to object to the > >>granting of a patent, not only do I need to pay a > >>substantial > >>"opposition fee" (about $600), if my objection is > >>overruled by the > >>Patents Commissioner, I have to pay the patent > >>applicant's costs, which > >>can run to thousands or tens of thousands of > >>dollars. It seems that the > >>patent system assumes that all patents are for the > >>public good, and that > >>anyone opposing a patent is just a troublemaker. > We > >>desperately need an > >>organisation like PUBPAT (see > http://www.pubpat.org/ > >>) here in > >>Australia. In fact, every country needs one! > >> > >>Tim C > >> > >> > >> > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
