[Free-sklyarov-uk] Letter from Frits Bolkenstein on software patents

[David Haworth]

Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 06:29:17PM +0100, Jonathan Riddell wrote:
> 
> He says that the propsal will not make anything patentable which was not
> already patentable - is that true?

If it were true, why is any change to the law being proposed? It isn't
usual for our so-called "repesentatives" to propose things that have
no effect whatsoever. So this statement doesn't stack up on those grounds
alone.

> He also says that mathematical
> algorithms will not be patentable, but I seem to mind that the EPO has
> passed some crypto algorithms.

If that's true, then no software will be patentable, since that's all
that software is.

One thing that's very important to know is where are the safeguards
to prevent abuse of the new ability. One of the big problems with
suddenly allowing software patents where none were allowed before
is that the floodgates are opened for all sorts of nonsensical
patents, like has already happened (and is still happening) in the US.
Prime example: Microsoft's patented DRM OS - there isn't anything
in that patent that isn't either obvious or "common knowledge"
(or both), yet the patent was still granted. A quick trawl through
the USPTO database will turn up hundreds of others - all with the
potential to be acquired by large companies and used to wipe out
smaller competitors.

BTW Don't knock the house of lords too much - sometimes they seem to be the
one voice of reason and common sense in an increasingly out-of-touch
government.

Dave

-- 
David Haworth                                            dave at fen-net.de
Baiersdorf, Germany.                     http://home.graffiti.net/pogue/