Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:34:55 -0500

Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 09:02, Seth Johnson wrote:
> > Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 19:13, Ben Tilly wrote:
> > >
> > > The problem today is whether the fact that you get a patent (in software
> > > field) means you are making enough innovation to make it worth for the
> > > community not for the people that get the patent.
> > >
> > > It is dead obvious that getting a monopoly is a big advantage for a
> > > single player. And it is dead obvious that it is an incentive to get
> > > more patents (more monopolies).
> >
> >
> > It really helps to simply state that not everything that's
> > innovative is patentable.
> Yes, the problem is being able to define it in a way lawyers cannot
> twist the meaning as with the software "as such" in the EPC :-/

Yes, but note that my recommendation in itself controls the
rhetoric (and duplicity) by which they accomplish that twisting,
by taking away the unexamined premise that all innovation should
be patentable.



DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

[CC] Counter-copyright:

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.