[Fsfe-ie] Re: Conversation with Mrs. Doyle last week
Justin Mason
jm at jmason.org
Mon Aug 18 19:20:02 CEST 2003
[trimmed cc list]
Niall Douglas writes:
> 2. All existing patents registered at the EPO should become null and
> void though if their holders choose, they may reapply under the new
> criteria and if successful, they get a new patent in preference to
> any newer applications.
Oops! *software* patents, not just patents in general ;) I would clarify
that...
Apart from that oversight (I would think ;) it's a great letter BTW.
Thanks for the link to the gnu-friends.org article with all those quotes
-- I hadn't seen that before.
The point about most of the EPO's list of software patents belonging to US
multinationals, is a really key point IMO.
> 1. Member States shall ensure that whenever a patent claim names
> features that imply the use of a computer program, a well-functioning
> and well documented reference implementation of such a program shall
> be published as a part of description without any restricting
> licensing terms
>
> Reason: You can filter out "patent land grabs" as commonly practised
> by software multinationals who patent thousands of promising areas of
> software development and yet further develop only a few. If however
> they have to write a reference implementation, not only do you
> strongly encourage the company to further develop the patent but you
> also substantially lessen the patent being used to prevent further
> development by competitors.
I'm not sure this is a solution. Consider these patents -- the
"transforming long filenames" Sun one at the EPO, or the "drawing a pie
chart" MS one at the USPTO. Both are easily demonstrated in a ref impl,
since they are both fundamental techniques easily written in 3 hours.
Since they are so fundamental they should not be patents -- but the
ref impl requirement doesn't place any impediment in the way.
--j.
More information about the FSFE-IE
mailing list