[pp.int.general] philosophy vs. action

[Reinier Bakels]

>>> implementation, not an idea, and patents cover ideas.
>> I am fully aware of the problems with software patents, but this is 
>> incorrect. Copyright law never protects the underlying ideas (for 
>> software, that is even explicitly codified), so they leave something to 
>> be protected - or not to be protected, that is the argument.
> Not true, software patents cover ideas instead of true inventions, and 
> that's one of PIRATA's argument to oppose software patents -seems not to 
> be one of yours-.
Read carefully! Here I am talking about the scope of COPYright. Which is not 
all-encompassing. It leaves something unprotected. Next question is whether 
that is OK, or needs (patent) protection. I only contend that it is not 
illogical, I do not contend that it is undesirable.

But I do believe that there is no reason to make an exception for software 
patents. I worked with FFII, and most FFII supporters are IT people. So for 
them it is logical to concentrate on software patents. But for PP, imho a 
wider perspective is needed (even if perhaps most PP people have an IT 
backgroun as well).

Actually some fields of technnology appear to be more susceptible for patent 
problems, but definitely not only software.

Again, rather than proposing abolishment of software patents (or e.g. 
semiconductor patents, that suffer from similar problems), politicians imho 
ought to ask "meta-questions" first: who decides on patent policy? Presently 
it is the patent office, a temple of patent believers. Guess what the result 
is ...

I just saw that Microsoft again is attacked by the European Commission. 
Again, critics will cry that this is a political decision, and intellectual 
property (without quotes here) is in danger! What is the PP response?

reinier