tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2150565344630459212..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Tony Blair says "no" to software patentsVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54036901634045346922007-03-01T12:42:00.000+00:002007-03-01T12:42:00.000+00:00The description of Richard Lightman as being dysle...The description of Richard Lightman as being dyslexic was purely to explain the grammatical and spelling errors in the petition, rather than pointing them out with "[sic]", which might just look as though I was making fun of them. I want people to look at the substance of the petition and not its superficial flaws. If you care to look at Mr Lightman's <A HREF="http://www.apig.org.uk/current-activities/apig-inquiry-into-digital-rights-management/apig-drm-written-evidence/Richard_L.doc" REL="nofollow">own admissions</A> you will see that he would not take any offence by this, and that I am not trivialising his condition.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-10712994532000507212007-03-01T11:48:00.000+00:002007-03-01T11:48:00.000+00:00Am I alone in considering David's objection to the...Am I alone in considering David's objection to the petition does not excuse him unnecessarily using the term "dyslexic" in a manner which can only trivialise the problems of sufferers of this condition? As I am sure David is aware, there is a great difference between poor grammar and spelling and dyslexia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18601901963399759682007-03-01T10:07:00.000+00:002007-03-01T10:07:00.000+00:00Is your concern more that Blair's statement will b...Is your concern more that Blair's statement will be seen as endorsement of the petition? I can see that as a very real cause for concern.<BR/><BR/>Looking again at the petition, it's a prime example of the mutually contradictory and muddled arguments of the anti-software patent brigade. First they complain that patents are being granted for software code, then they complain that these patents give no useful information for writing software, which only serves to highlight the very important point that the software code itself is irrelevant to the underlying contribution that is being patented.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424257512957515766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-40399314277315270652007-03-01T09:33:00.000+00:002007-03-01T09:33:00.000+00:00With reference to the IPKat's expressed concern th...With reference to the IPKat's expressed concern that "what is more worrying is that 2,215 people signed it before the petition closed on 20 February", let me provide a little reassurance:<BR/><BR/>This voting tally is only about half the 4,109 people who signed <A HREF="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/juggle/" REL="nofollow">this petition</A> that "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stand on his head and juggle ice-cream".<BR/><BR/>I think that puts the software petition in its proper context...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78748299932522066652007-03-01T06:59:00.000+00:002007-03-01T06:59:00.000+00:00It's probably a matter of interpretation. I objec...It's probably a matter of interpretation. I object more to the petition itself and its misunderstandings than the government response. Admittedly, the response doesn't really say anything new, but I wonder whether the <A HREF="http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/p-decisionmaking/p-challenge/p-challenge-decision-results/o05706.pdf" REL="nofollow">Sun Microsystems decision</A> would go the same way if considered now. Your assumption may well be correct, but I suspect it might not be.David Pearcehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02336561458060095886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-90173019662053496512007-02-28T21:10:00.000+00:002007-02-28T21:10:00.000+00:00I'm confused. The Kat comments that he "thought th...I'm confused. The Kat comments that he "thought that what counted was the technical contribution an invention made, not how it was implemented" as if the Tony Blair statement says something different.<BR/><BR/>The release sounds to be precisely in keeping with current UKPO practice to me, so I'm wondering which bit the Kat has issues with.<BR/><BR/>OK, true it uses the CFPH language of "advances" solely in the field of software rather than "contributions", but otherwise it's pretty much a recitation of the third step that the Kat has emboldened, assuming that "in the field of software" means "in the actual writing of a computer program" rather than, say, in the deciding what contribution you ultimately want your computer program to make.Geoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12424257512957515766noreply@blogger.com