Linked by Christian Schaller on Tue 19th Apr 2005 18:26 UTC
Legal We today face the risk of software patents being approved in the EU because not enough parliamentary members will be showing up to vote. Due to this it is important for those of us who oppose software patents to make sure EU parliament members see the damage software patents cause, so they realize it is important to be there to vote providing the needed absolute majority. But sending out a clear message is also important for the process of patent reform in the US and other places who have fallen into the trap of introducing them.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lazy hysteria on this topic as usual
by JP on Wed 20th Apr 2005 14:28 UTC

...sorry, the last link I mentioned above didn't work.
So, the official US patent concerning double clicking (etc.):

OK. Let's take this example. The claims determine the actual effect of a patent. Have you read the claims?

Some questions for you. Does this double click even have a mouse? Does this double click apply without first depressing an "application button" for an extended period of time? Oh well . . . why bother with facts when it is so much more entertaining to just slander a patent examiner?

I am no fan of Microsoft that's for sure. Also, there were some bogus U.S. software patents granted long ago; however their collection of software "prior art" has long since been greatly improved and very few such errors occur for a long time now. Before just slamming people, even if its people we "love to hate", you should at least read up on how the patent system works today and try to find legitimate examples . . . IF YOU CAN.

And, btw, IF YOU CAN there is a process of throwing them out. Use that process if you want a patent thrown out. You have lost credibility with me on this topic because I did take the time to read through your first example and I find it totally bogus.

We should all double look in the mirror before making accusations. Fear not, your privilege to do so has not been patented.