Read: [next] [previous] message

[d@DCC] Requesting that you take on flawed patent office practices

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: "Masse, Brian - M.P." <Masse.B (at) parl.gc.ca>
Cc: General Copyright Discussions <discuss -_at_- list.digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:52:53 -0500 (EST)

(Full contact information at http://www.flora.ca/#contact )

Dear Brian Masse (Windsor West), 
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/page/or/229

NDP Shadow Cabinet: Industry, Science and Technology, Auto Policy, Canada 
Border Services, Customs


  I published an article to my Weblog earlier today which may be of 
interest to you.  It is about a Longueuil (Quebec) company abusing a very 
broken patent system both domestically an internationally to extort money 
out of legitimate companies trying to do business.

  CIO: The Broader the E-Biz, the Bigger the Lawsuit
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/665


  A new class of patents has been created in the past few decades which
when studied is found to have a quality of less than 40%, meaning that
more than 60% of the patents granted in this subject matter would not
stand up in court.  This class is information/mental process patents which
can include pure logic such as what is in software, to business models,
and possibly onward to laws and acts of parliament.  It is also said that
gene sequence patents are a derivative class of patents from software,
which are also a type of monopoly which has not been adequately studied to
determine whether it harms or help innovation, or whether granting
monopolies in this subject matter meets other public policy goals.

  Whether good quality patents promote innovation in each subject matter
class can be debated, but there can be no debate that poor quality patents
harm not only the credibility of the patent system but also greatly harms
the economy as a whole.  I suspect you are aware of the context which is a
US patent system which patents on exercising your cat with a laser
pointer, playing fetch with your dog or combing your hair to cover bald
spots. Further legal analysis is simply not going to get us rational 
policy.

  Patent lawyers have a vested interest in expanding what can be
considered a "machine, manufacture or composition of matter".  I have
filed an AtiP request of Industry Canada to have them disclose the
practices of the patent office around software patents, and it includes
the irrational conclusion that a computer running a different piece of
software is somehow a different "machine".  This is about as rational as
claiming when a human being learns something new that it becomes a new
person, and with each new thought this person must apply for a new birth
certificate.

  Access to Information Request sent to Industry Canada for updated MOPOP 
  for the review of software/business method patents.
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/626

  Have you considered taking on the patent quality problem of the patent
office?  This is both a domestic issue relating to problems at CIPO, but
also a problem that Canadians could positively influence with our
participation at WIPO, WTO (TRIPS) and other such international venues.

  We must move past the special interest legal analysis of the past few
decades which seeks to expand this type of monopoly, to rational economic
policy that is consistent with other Canadian public policy goals.


Thank you for your consideration,

Russell McOrmond
Full contact information at http://www.flora.ca/#contact

P.S. I will be meeting next Monday, January 24, with Charlie Angus to talk 
about copyright.  As we have discussed in the past there are considerable 
problems with this area of technology law as well, with incumbent special 
interests seeking to amend the law to favor them against growing 
creativity which "skips the intermediaries" (meaning, skips those 
incumbent special interests).

  The underlying debate isn't about ways to stop copyright infringement,
but lobbying to create new types of infringement which will favor those
legacy and increasingly unnecessary intermediaries.  The 1996 WIPO
treaties are not about reducing copyright infringement, but about reducing
competative alternatives to the existing intermediaries.

-- 
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Happy Hacking, Eh!    http://www.digital-copyright.ca/blog/2 (My BLOG)
 Sign the Petition Users' Rights! http://digital-copyright.ca/petition/
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@list.digital-copyright.ca
http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles

You need to subscribe to post to this forum.
XML feed