Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Ben Tilly <btilly@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:55:36 -0800

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 18:13:51 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull
<stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
> >>>>> "Russell" == Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca> writes:
> 
>     Russell>   a) Patent policy is *economic* public policy that
>     Russell> exists to provide incentives for innovation.  Different
>     Russell> subject matter exists in an entirely different economic
>     Russell> context, and thus economic analysis and not legal
>     Russell> analysis is needed to determine if a specific subject
>     Russell> matter class should be patentable.
> 
> That's a Napoleanic Code view which simply isn't the way common-law
> legal systems work.  AFAIK Canada's legal system owes far more to its
> English (common-law) heritage than to its French (Napoleanic), and the
> US is definitely English.
[...]

Here's my understanding.

Canada uses common law in every province except Quebec, where
civil law is decided under the Napoleonic code.

The situation is similar to the USA which is under common law in
every state except New Orleans, which follows the Napoleonic code.

Cheers,
Ben