Canadian version of Ubuntu

[Darryl Moore]

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 15:48 -0400, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Thursday 03 August 2006 15:27, Rob Bowers wrote:
> > We and Ubuntu will know what we're doing when we do it. I see no reason
> > that there should be risks. Of course we'll be careful. I still say we keep
> > it uncamouflaged, straight under US patent policy's nose.
> 
> Don't forget that most of these restriction apply to Canada, because patents 
> have been filed here in canada. Whatever validaty there is, the only fact 
> that there are patents is a threat and unlike for a crime, you have to prove 
> that you are innocent by either showing that you don't infringe the patent or 
> that said patent is invalid because it is not patentable or it has prior art, 
> etc.
> 

Ah but we do have a little bit of case law on our side which says
otherwise.

-----------------------

from: http://www.shapirocohen.com/softpatents.htm

The test for determining whether a software related invention is
patentable was set out in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of
Patents (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.A.). The test considers, what (if
anything), according to the application, has been discovered. The court
held that if the invention was merely the discovery that by making
certain calculations according to certain formulae, useful information
could be extracted from certain measurements, then the application
should be refused on the basis that it lacked patentable subject matter
under section 2 of the Patent Act. Essentially, the court suggested that
if the program interacted with physical objects other than the computer
in a novel, useful and inventive way, the invention was patentable. In
response to Schlumberger and related decisions, the Patent Office
developed new guidelines, used by the Patent Office Examiners to assess
the patentability of computer related subject matter. The guidelines are
as follows: 

1.Computer programs per se are not patentable;
2.Processes which are unapplied mathematical calculations, even if
expressed in words rather than in mathematical symbols, are not
patentable;
3.A process and/or computer program which merely produces information
for mental interpretation by a human being is not patentable, nor does
the process or program confer novelty upon the apparatus which uses it;
4.Claims drawn up in terms of means plus function which merely produce
intellectual data are not patentable;
5.New and useful processes incorporating a computer program, and
apparatus incorporating a programmed computer, are directed to
patentable subject matter if the computer related matter has been
integrated with another practical system that falls within an area which
is traditionally patentable; and
6.The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for
such a computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract
patentability from, an apparatus or process.

------

> And that alone make that the lawyer still have a reason to not have a reform 
> of the patent system: it is a cash cow.
> 
> All in all I don't think it is even worth the effort. Better fight against.
> 

Against....... what? 

Even if all we can add is DeCSS (but I think there is a lot more) it
will put this issue of DRM, intellectual monopolies and user rights on
the front burner for Parliament who are currently looking at ways to
reduce user rights in law.

Do you think Michael Geist would be willing to help?????