Hi,
>[...]
> The result of this is that no matter if someone takes out a patent on their
> software we can generally ignore it, becaue the patent holder would have to
> pursure a lengthy and very expensive legal case with a strong likelihood of
> failure.
The problem is, _you_ would also have to _defend_ yourself over a lengthy
and very expensive legal trial. And it is quite likely that it would be too
expensive and you would just give up. Patents can actually give larger
companies the ability to bully small companies/academic developpers that
way...
And there _are_ also patents that would be valid (no prior art, not
obvious). But what if (say) basic direct methods had been patented ? Would we
want to lock their development to a few developpers ? Software needs
diversity.
> So while I too think that software patents are a bad idea, I actually think
> it will in most cases turn out to be unenforceable. Typical muddle and lack
> of understanding of the real world that we have come to expect from the
> European Union.
Well, at least we seem to be the last adopting SoftPat, so there's worse
than the EuParl.
> Of course it could be that many of the members of the
> Europarliament are also lawyers: if so legislation of this sort is going to
> be of considerable personal profit to them. Or am I just being too cynical?
I'm not sure that many are lawyers, even if the top promoters are indeed.
The lobbying in favor of patents comes mostly from american software
companies through the BSA, and also directly from Washington, who threatens
to "sue" (don't know what the correct term is) Europe in front of the WTO if
we do not legalize SoftPat.
Vincent
--
Vincent Favre-Nicolin
Université Joseph Fourier
http://v.favrenicolin.free.fr
ObjCryst & Fox : http://objcryst.sourceforge.net
