Trivial patents *not the problem* (was: Re: [ILUG] Re: ILUG sends s/w patents briefing document to Irish MEPs)

[Paul Jakma]

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

>
> [snip: economic/employment arguments from IFSO letters]

> Since all the above arguments were mine:

Ah oops, yours. ok.

>> Idealogical "Software is different!!" argument is simply academic

> 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.

Arguing from the economic POV perfectly pragmatic and fine.

Arguing from a basis of "Ideas in software are inherently different 
from other ideas (which are already patentable)" is, imho, not. 
(least not unless you're arguing against the patent system in 
general).

>From some of your comments, I thought you were arguing on the latter 
basis. Apologies if you were not, my misunderstanding.

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at clubi.ie	paul at jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Bill Dickey is learning me his experience.
 		-- Yogi Berra in his rookie season.