| Who we are | Organizations | Get Involved! | Helpdesk |
| Weblog | About FLORA | Server project | F.A.Q. |
|
|
|||||||
| ||||||||
Election 2006 (and beyond): Digital Copyright Canada
From: pjlahaie_-at-_atlsci.com (Paul J.Y. Lahaie)
Date: 5 Feb 1999 09:17:02 -0500
References: <199902031816.NAA13644@striker.ottawa.on.ca>
russell@flora.ottawa.on.ca wrote:
> rejected any time soon. So I guess this leads us into a the logical
> thread of "reforming the system" as everyone does seem to agree that the
> current system has flaws (Whether one believes they are fundamental or
> minor is where we'll have to agree to disagree).
We agree on this one. The patent system should be closer (and
better) than
it was when it was first implemented. Review by experts in the field,
patents of
process, not based of first-to-file and shorter spans for some patents
(maybe others
need longer). That is the minimum it needs to start working for it's
intended purpose.
> Indias patent system in-line with that of the WTO, which is based on the
> US patent model. This is being imposed on them by the WTO which has
> essentially said that there would be trade sanctions against India (Now
> that they are addicted to foreign goods and the money for the products
> they sell) if they don't sign on within a certain amount of time.
Unfortunately, India has the choice to say no and live off it's own
industries. If you don't like the rules in the sandbox, play in another
sandbox.
> Whether or not the Canadian patent system would protect us 'now' isn't
> so much an issue as whether we (as citizens of the same planet, not just
> as a bubble-of-Canadians) are going to be protected in the long term. We
> live in a globalized world where the effects of bad laws in other
> countries affect everyone. Are you willing to risk what I believe are the
> the logical outcomes of this war against the majority populations of the
> planet for the small-benefits that you might gain, or because of the
> "origional intention" of patents/copyright?
The patent system needs reform, I have never disputed this. I don't
think you throw it all out just because of flaws in the current
implementation. If your solution to flaws is to throw out the whole, I
guess we should just get rid of everything then (including all life).
> And of course a primer on this issue from one of those people that
> elicit even more interesting comments than those generated by RMS ;-) (And
> yes, someone else who I tend to agree with)
But he's talking about the lawyer rules patent system. I'll repeat
it again..
The patent system was not made for that. It's used for that now because
years
of lobbying and lawyer touch has corrupted from it's original goal.
| Please read the FLORA.org Terms and Conditions before you submit information to FLORA.org | |
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign(USA) (Canada) |
 FLORA Community Web
(FLORA.ORG) is sponsored by FLORA
Community Consulting (FLORA.CA).
|