Patents - Innovation (was Re: [Fsfe-ie] Charlie McCreevy)
seth.johnson at realmeasures.dyndns.org
Sun Aug 15 14:32:47 CEST 2004
If we put out a line showing the problems with counting "patents" as a
measure of innovation, and a practical analysis of the implications, this
will make it much, much easier for Commissioners who feel the pressure to
"stay with the program" to take a position on our side. They will not just
have to stand up for non-patentability of software, but they will also have
the means to comment on and articulate their position with respect to the
overriding "Lisbon Strategy" project.
Seth Johnson wrote:
> > I think we should start something where we get economic and political
> > analysts to comment on the uncritical use of the number of patents as an
> > indicator of innovation and research. We can target that analysis to
> > McCreevy.
> What I'm talking about in the following is, we need to convey to the folks
> who devised the performance measures for the Lisbon Strategy, that simply
> counting "technology patents" as a measures of innovation, failing to make
> the distinction that SW patents establish a thoroughgoing constraint on
> innovation, is not going to work as an objective measure for the "voluntary"
> Lisbon Strategy. In describing the distinction and its implications, we may
> do well to play to Verheugen, and to the evident "balancing" between Michel
> and Mandelson. This is very important, because I believe it is this
> overarching strategy, and this measure in particular, which probably
> accounts for the implacable indifference of these folks to assertions of
> democratic principles of governance, as they pursue a "fact-based,"
> business-like approach to governance.
DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders!
New Yorkers for Fair Use
[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc
I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
More information about the FSFE-IE