Subject: Re: patent trolls and X-licensors
From: Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:42:15 +0200
Fri, 02 Jun 2006 11:42:15 +0200
El jue, 01-06-2006 a las 18:43 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull escribió:
>     simo>  In theory the patent system should not apply for on
>     simo> research, only on product selling, yet some companies have
>     simo> been successful in shutting down research and publication of
>     simo> results by patents
> 
> Maybe in Europe.  In the U.S. it's quite explicit.  Practicing the
> patent without license, for any purpose, is forbidden.  Nor is there a
> fair use exception, for research or anything else, as far as I know. 

I don't understand what you call "practicing the patent". Publishing the
(public) patented methods is *not* violating the patent rights in any
wat (research and publication, in simo quote).

At least in Europe's traditional legislation, only industrial processes
are subjects to patents, and this is how it should stay:

patents are a monopoly granted, when factories were expensive to build
and maintain, to enable gathering and recovery of investments. Out of
activities where there are industrial processes involved, patents don't
make any sense.

The last European Parliament proposal (the Rocard report), the one that
was ignored by the EU commission and motivated the spectacular rebuttal
of the proposal, said precisely this: that only physical processes could
be subjects to patents. This helps to keep the spirit of the law,
allowing patents only in manufacturing processes.

(And don't tell me that Microsoft "CD printing press" is a manufacturing
process, it is more like a Journal, and hence it should be subject
*only* to copyrights)

Regards, and sorry about the rant
Santiago
-- 
Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
High Sierra Technology, SLU


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]