On Wednesday 02 Jun 2004 17:22, IanBell wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 Jun 2004 2:29 pm, Joe Button wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I thought I'd forward a copy of the email I just sent the Eastern MEPs to
> > the list - I was in both a hurry and a blind rage when I wrote it so it's
> > probably not me at my most coherent. Please let me know if there's
> > anything obviously wrong with it.
>
> Seems coherent enough to me but it has one flaw. What you are complaining
> about, it seems to me, is the granting of an invalid patent because of
> provable prior art. This situation has always been a possibility with
> patents and is in no way unique to software.
I did refer to prior art, but I thought I managed to winge about various other
things as well, eg. the patenting of the blindingly obvious and the lack of
remedy when patents are of dubious validity. Maybe I could have talked about
the ways that software is a special case, but you there's only so much you
can cram into an MEP's skull in one go.
Really what I was trying to convey was that permitting patents on software
created a restrictive and uncertain environment for businesses, in the hope
of undermining the pro-unamended text lobby's position that it will increase
clarity.
Thanks for describing me as 'coherent' - I think that's probably the nicest
thing anyone's ever said about me.
Joe x