[ILUG] Re: ILUG sends s/w patents briefing document to Irish MEPs

[David Golden]

On Sunday 20 March 2005 13:58, Paul Jakma wrote:

> (ie, dont extend the scope of a broken system until the 
> system is fixed)?

Well, that is my attitude in the immediate fight against software patent
monopoly grant, a tactical delay of extension of the scope of patenting.
It looks to me like patenting is following the law of bureaucracy and 
never decreasing.*

But importantly, I consider "fixing" the system entire to require 
nothing less than my compromise position:
patents only enforceable against patent holders.


*As a recent report on groklaw from one of the UKPO 
forced-choice-on-meaning-of-technical-contribution meetings
says:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050319124156532
"""
A member of the UKPO staff expressed the opinion that some examiners in 
the European Patent Office had awarded a small number of patents they 
should not have done, and that an aim of the Directive was to stop 
this, although he didn't say whether the Directive should invalidate 
these patents. He also commented that making all software unpatentable 
would invalidate a large body of existing patents, which was (he 
implied) out of the question. I felt the implication of these remarks 
was that patent law could only ever progress in one direction: greater 
patentability.
"""