Niall Douglas s_fsfeurope2@nedprod.com wrote:
As much as we may want a complete overhaul of the EU parliamentary system and indeed democracy, I think it's unproductive in this particular context.
It is happening anyway, but not in time for this.
I state once again that software patents will exist in some form. There is no point arguing that we're not mandated to, or that they can be averted. Being unrealistic is the single best way to bring down the worst possible form of software patent upon us.
Being defeatist is the single best way to ensure that we get a form of software patents. Devil and the deep blue sea. Given this, I'm arguing that "These are crap because X, Y, Z but please at least don't let them do A, B, C."
Core is that I regard programs as a branch of mathematics, discoveries not inventive acts.
I also look forward to patenting electronic documents, etc, if they really screw it up.
[...]
The first thing which struck me is "why is this proposed legislation so vague?". Vague legislation is automatically bad legislation.
And yet, we are often told that one reason for this is to reduce the ambiguity in the current system.
[...]
The third highly important amendment is needing to set what precisely involves an inventive step. I would make it high ie; "a substantial advance over the status quo".
Is this not fixed already? I thought you said you couldn't change EPO rules. Immovability of this has been suggested as one reason why we must have them voted down.