[discuss] Policy priorities...
russell at flora.ca
Tue Oct 31 14:03:53 EST 2006
Don Kelly wrote:
> Then again, this is in Canadian jurisdiction. AFAIK, we don't have
> 'official' software patents in this country.
We have CIPO's Manual of Patent Office Practices. While my reading
of the legal precedent that Canada should not be honoring software
patents, our patent office has been granting them and they are legally
enforceable unless a court says otherwise. We need a court to say
otherwise, but only the largest players can afford to be a test case.
Maybe it should be considered part of the job of the Privacy
Commissioner to sue the Commissioner of Patents for granting an
information process patent that disallows her "7 laws" to be fulfilled.
To read more on the MOPOP changes, check out
> Hmmm... I'm not convinced that tangential shouting from third parties
> should stop us from insisting that the Commissioner suggest ideas that
> can be implemented by more than one entity.
I also believe that the Commissioner should not be endorsing or
recommending a "technology" that cannot be implemented in a way that
violates the underlying policy that it is intended to implement. The
"7 laws" clearly imply that a full spectrum of implementations should be
possible, and if a technology doesn't allow for those implementations
then it doesn't adhere to the "7 laws".
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"
More information about the discuss