I just basically want the “pro-crowd” to answer my questions, without telling me to go and read a directive or claim that an open debate about the issue has already happened.[/quote:609fb44ff0]
It is very difficult to answer questions without either having to delve into specifics imposed by the question, or all of the considerations required to answer a ‘general’ question.
Yes I should read the directive to have a fully informed opinion, but why can’t i get the list of basics if I have a short attention span or can’t be bothered to read it?[/quote:609fb44ff0]
Allow me to give the succinct version:
(Init :lol: )
(i) EPC “software as such is not patentable”
(ii) Practice for 20+ years “computer configured by the software can be patented, if the configuration results in a technical effect”
(iii) Technical effect – never satisfactorily defined by anyone (either side)
Best approximation: “that which makes the computer do something technically which it never could before” (so, different from calculating 2 + 2 with Excel or sending an order form to a supplier, say)(iv) Directive “software as such is not patentable, but computer configured by the software can be patented, if the configuration results in a technical effect”
(v) Outcry
End :cry:
computer software is something that almost everyone in the (should Western go here?) world uses everyday.[/quote:609fb44ff0]
They do so under the software EULA. Patent issues arise before the EULA stage, and (usually) only concern the developers/publishers, not the ‘general’ end user.This will of course vary with what kind of software etc. (hundreds of millions use Office, a few thousands worldwide use Flame or Inferno, e.g.).
Any changes regarding how software inventions are protected are a big issue for not just the industry involved, but the general population as many everyday things that could be done by “hand” (Want a better word here.) are now done by computer controlled systems.[/quote:609fb44ff0]
If the functionality of a software is only to do with a PC what can be done by hand (e.g. send an order form to a supplier), then you can’t get a patent in Europe for it – before or after the Directive. It’s called a “mental act”.
It is logical to conclude that such a debate would be widely publicised in the media, so why have I not yet seen this?[/quote:609fb44ff0]
Stating the obvious somewhat, but it’s not as hot as Britney’s bra size or the composition of the Brit’s World Cup team, unfortunately.
Maybe the slavery example feral used was a little crude. I think the point he was trying to make is that the clandestine (Whether itentionally so or not) approch taken by the pro crowd so far has done them no favours in convincing the other sides that this legislation/directive is a good thing.[/quote:609fb44ff0]
We’ve been everything but (clandestine). Rather, we’ve used legal/legit/’official’ (i) public channels and (ii) means/arguments to try to get our end, rather than disinformation.
Steph is arguing that patents only affect people in economical terms, how so? Economical affects will have knock on affect in other aspects of their lives too, is this not a capitalist society?[/quote:609fb44ff0]
Patents influence business, period. Whether they exist or not, software will be still be developed and used. However, the rate and extent to which it is developed and used (and distributed) will be affected. Everything after that is causality and there ain’t enough space on this php server to house the amount of bits required to discuss it that far.
As for bringing religious examples into the debate, that is worse than slavery. We are not dicussing theology here.[/quote:609fb44ff0]
Lighten up. feral brought the comparison with crime/murder, I only relativised it.