But going down the free vs proprietary route is quite different. And I would say a potentially huge distraction. What exactly does free mean anyway... Please leave it off the agenda.
Anthony
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Ciarán O'Riordan
<address@hidden> wrote:
Three things about a free software exception:
1. It would pretty much mean recognising software as being patentable.
(This might be the biggest problem.)
2. It would require putting a definition of free software in a law.
(If this gets messy or botched, point #1 will hit us in the face.)
3. Australia has to comply with TRIPS:
I think the two relevant parts of TRIPS are article 27:
"...patents shall be available and patent rights enjoyable without
discrimination as to [...] the field of technology..."
And article 30:
"Members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights
conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not
unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do
not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent
owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties."
http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm#5
So, would an "if you respect people's freedom" exception be allowed?
The only attempt I know of at using this rule is the "curing epidemic"
exception that some African countries with AIDS epidemics and no money
thought of implementing. They were told 'No'. (A new worldwide treaty
had to be negotiated.)
--
+32 485 118 029 (<-NEW),
http://ciaran.compsoc.com
Please help build the software patents wiki:
http://en.swpat.org
http://www.EndSoftwarePatents.org
Donate: http://endsoftwarepatents.org/donate
List: http://campaigns.fsf.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/esp-action-alert
--
Dr Anthony Berglas, address@hidden Mobile: +61 4 4838 8874
Just because it is possible to push twigs along the ground with ones nose
does not necessarily mean that that is the best way to collect firewood.