 |
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION 
|
|
CONTENT SYNDICATION
|
|
BLOGROLL OPML:
|
|
|
|
Search in IPJUR.COM
|
BLOG@IP::JURPatent Attorney Axel H Horns' Blog on Intellectual Property Law.
Saturday, October 23, 2004Semantical Warfare.The Eurolinux Alliance and their supporters like Mr. Florian Mueller must not be allowed to get away with the fruits of their propagandistic attempts to re-define the concepts of Intellectual Property law contrary to the written law as interpreted by the competent courts or Boards of Appeal, respectively. They do not have any legitimate power to re-define the interpretation of the law. They must not be allowed to "occupy" any of the long-standing concepts of patent law. It is just of utmost importance that the power to interpret the law is not allowed to creep from the judicature bodies entrusted with this task by constitution to some biased NGOs. In particular, Eurolinux in general and FFII e.V. in particular are not merely innocent contributors to a public debate. They are highly aware of any tactical advance they can gain from their fight on concepts. In particular, by injecting their bogus theory about alleged "illegal software patents granted by the EPO contra legem" deeply into the civil society they are in a much better position to disseminate further alarming calls to fight against the EU Commission's proposal because of this Directive would "legalise already illegally granted software patents". Meanwhile it seems in fact to be common consensus in the press as well as among many citizens interested in the patentability of computer-implemented inventions that the Directive as drafted by the EU Commission would "introduce" software patents. Another example for Eurolinux' successful war on concepts is the spreading of their carefully plotted myth according to which it would constitute an illicit mode of "double protection" if an invention behind the code of a computer program is allowed to be patented.
Within the sphere of the Internet, the definitions of patent-related terms given by disinformation activities of Eurolinux anti-patent activists are absolutely predominant in quantity. Despite the fact that those insiders of the patent system who are acting as its defenders represent a vital centre of competence with regard to intellectual property law in general and patent law in particular, they appear to be somewhat overwhelmed and outmanoeuvred in view of the excellent performance of various communities of patent critics, in particular NGOs, with regard to the utilisation of modern communication means for propagandistic purposes, in particular the Internet. The various associations and professional bodies of patent professionals are used to publish carefully drafted statements concerning all aspects of patent law but they are probably not at eye level with many anti-patent NGOs which effectively disseminate their political spin amongst the general public and journalists via the Internet. When surfing the web, an overall impression might come up according to which web sites of patent professionals and their respective Institutes and associations tend to be somewhat meagre with regard to timely and substantial information contents. Traditionally, those insiders of the patent system are very experienced in delivering their issues utilising personal connections with decision makers but it might well be legitimate to scrutinise whether or not this is adequate vis-a-vis a political adversary constituted as something like an on-line community. It looks as if it would be impossible at the time being to determine whether or not such traditional means of lobbying are actually stronger in effect than the activities of vast armies of activist volunteers harnessed by anti-patent NGOs and well co-ordinated by Internet-based technologies (e-mail distribution lists, general purpose web sites, blogs, wikis, etc.). Nevertheless it is surely high time that patent professionals make sure much more than before that their views are highly visible also in the Internet.
| ||||||||||||||||
