-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Present: Robert Fitzsimons Ciaran O'Riordan Glenn Strong Malcolm Tyrrell
Apologies for not being there.
Discussion, topics, and suggestions:
- Given the current focus, would it be useful to organise an anti e-patent body independent of FFII?
Those FFII guys don't seem to like sharing info. I personally don't think theres enough energy to support two organisations. The IFSO should push the anti-swpat agenda as part of IFSO.
- We could provide a "throwaway" web site (e.g. irish-anti-e-patents.org) that we could direct people to.
It looks like I may be getting http://ifso.cs.may.ie, if that's any help.
- We should assemble a list of current amendments (as they come out) - remove the proposer information (to remove any prejudice that may be associated with the name). - Identify each as a Yes/No for our position. - Briefly discuss our reasoning for each decision. Use these to indicate to our MEPs the kind of amendments we would consider acceptable and unacceptable.
Ok. But we still have to push the ideal that swpats are bad and we don't wan them, full-stop.
- We should produce a challenge to Arlene McCarthy's Fact Sheet (that is, a specific response document that addresses the Myth/Fact items McCarthy listed here: http://vrijschrift.org/swpat/press/final_factsheet1092003.pdf)
I feel the concentration on describing swpats as "computer implementd inventions" is similar to tactics used by large sw manufacturers who talk about "trusted computing".
I'll be at the next one, I need a pint :)
- -- Thanks, Aidan Delaney - -- If anyone has both the right and the need to study the code and be assured of its correct functioning, it is users. -- Whitfield Diffie Checksums of bad data tell you only: "yup, that's exactly the same bad data the other guy has" -- Tom Lord
gpg key: http://minds.cs.may.ie/~balor/public_key.asc