Trivial patents *not the problem* (was: Re: [ILUG] Re: ILUG sends
s/w patents briefing document to Irish MEPs)
ciaran at member.fsf.org
Wed Mar 23 15:18:06 GMT 2005
[snip: economic/employment arguments from IFSO letters]
Paul Jakma <paul at clubi.ie> writes:
> Notice that all these arguments above are focused solely on the
> balance of economic impact. Which will be the only real way to sway
> the politicians.
Since all the above arguments were mine:
"Notice that your arguments are the real way to sway politicians"
> Idealogical "Software is different!!" argument is simply academic
Software is different from non-software, just as pharmacuticals are
different from non-pharmacuticals, and so on. This is just plain old
you-can't-walk-through-walls real world fact. For dinner I will eat
sausages instead of wood chippings, and if I find a hunk of wood in one of
my sausages I'll be unhappy because they are not the same (different).
People can argue that one patent law cannot be stretched to cover different
things such as like games, processes, schedules, pharmacuticals, or math.
In some of these cases, our government agrees, in others it doesn't.
The directive at hand is about software, so I'm arguing that our patent
system should not be stretched to cover algorithms -- whether it fits it's
current brief or not.
> > How can one argue against software patents without arguing against the
> > entire patent system without claiming that software is different?
> That's the problem in a nutshell :)
Arguing specifically against software patents is a problem?
The USA's Federal Trade Commission didn't have such a problem:
Nor did Tim Berners-Lee, Bruce Schneier, or Donald Knuth:
...or PriceWaterhouseCooper, Deutsche Bank, and others:
...and if you find none of them credible, I hear the Commission is hiring.
For "Why and how to help FSF Europe's Fellowship program", please see:
More information about the ILUG