On Wednesday, July 6, 2005 at 09:48 +0100, Malcolm Tyrrell wrote:
--- Alex Macfie alex@cgce.net wrote:
It also looks like the pro-patent lobby may push for a rejection of the draft (which is bad):
No, it's good [...] we can claim victory.
It is better than a bad directive. However, assuming it is voted down, then we're back with "software as such" (aren't we?) and I expect patent litigation to be fought and sometimes won because of the ambiguity of that phrase.
The serious danger, as I see it, is that they will have failed to comprehensively forbid pure software patents. This means that the supporters of software patents will still be able to push individual governments to pass laws favourable to them, and the EPO will presumably be able to continue their practice of issuing software patents of dubious legality.
So this is better than having the so-called "common position" passed, but not as good as having the Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments passed.
I wouldn't be too keen on claiming a victory.
I would. Admittedly, a qualified victory, but we would have managed to avoid the horrors of unrestricted software patents.
I won't be suprised if a media campaign attempts to blame our side for *obstructing patent harmonisation in Europe*.
Bah, we'd get that in some form if the Buzek-Rocard-Duff amendments passed as well. The only way to avoid having the pro-swpat lobby criticise us would be to roll over!