Trivial patents *not the problem* (was: Re: [ILUG] Re: ILUG
sends s/w patents briefing document to Irish MEPs)
paul at clubi.ie
Wed Mar 23 15:26:16 GMT 2005
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
>From some of your comments, I thought you were arguing on the latter
basis. Apologies if you were not, my misunderstanding.
Paul Jakma paul at clubi.ie paul at jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Bill Dickey is learning me his experience.
-- Yogi Berra in his rookie season.
More information about the ILUG