Making the case against software patents (Was: Re: [Fsfe-ie] Ivana Bacik

[Niall Douglas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 24 May 2004 at 10:13, Ian Clarke wrote:

> > If pro-patent supporters really don't want software to be
> > patentable, why are they opposing the clarifying amendments such as
> > the EP came up with?
> > 
> > I'd like to see them explain that one. If they try, quote the 
> > specific amendment which means "computer software shall not be
> > patentable full stop period forever" and ask them precisely what is
> > wrong with that amendment.
> 
> Playing devil's advocate, I suspect they would argue that such an
> amendment would mean that physical inventions with a component that is
> software (eg. a form of computer-controlled lathe) would not be
> patentable, and they consider this to be undesirable.  By this point
> they have successfully blunted your argument.

Except that even pro-patent supporters claim to not support the 
ability to patent something containing software just because the 
software alone contains the inventive step of the invention.

One can use their own arguments against them by contrasting their 
actions against what they say they believe.

Cheers,
Niall





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 4.9.6.1 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBQLI2XcEcvDLFGKbPEQLVogCcDMYfHeP9RjMLxw/IZ8NpCejUNSMAn07N
70eEFOWrpmULtc0mSks+5nXW
=t4C+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----