[discuss] Policy priorities...

[Russell McOrmond]

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.

http://www.flora.ca/patent2003/

To read more on the MOPOP changes, check out 
http://www.flora.ca/A-2004-00246/

> 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!
  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

  "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!"