<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/11/1039379881466.html">http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/11/1039379881466.html</a><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/9/2 Chris Lockie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chris@lockie.org">chris@lockie.org</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><span style="font-family: Arial; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 10pt;"><div>Just been watching this story on the news: <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232130.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8232130.stm</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I find myself surprised at how much this story has confused me. On the one hand I am obviously oppsed to the insane use of patent law if certain fields, medicine being the obvious example, but on the other hand I wonder how best a small inventor such as Trevor Bayliss could protect his ideas from large companies who can copy them without breaking any criminal law and then deploy a battery of lawyers to minimise damages from a civil suit.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is the answer simply to redefine what can and cannot be patented, or to abandon the patent system and introduce a better way to protect ideas from unfair exploitation by others?</div>
<div> </div><font color="#888888">
<div>CL.</div></font></span></div>
<br>____________________________________________________<br>
Pirate Parties International - General Talk<br>
<a href="mailto:pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net">pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general" target="_blank">http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>