Author: Sean Gibbins Date: To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List Subject: Re: [Hampshire] Online Petitions at Downing St
Daniel Pope wrote: > Alex wrote:
>
>> The trouble is though, the previously quoted 'tagline' that is badly
>> worded is sometimes all people will see. Thus it ruins the appeal and
>> response of people who are just scan reading.
>>
>
> I don't think it's badly worded. What's wrong with it?
Software patents are used by convicted monopolists to threaten
customers who consider using rival software. As a result, patents
stifle innovation.
[Comment] this is emotive and a gross generalisation.
Patents are supposed to increase the rate of innovation by publicising
how inventions work. Reading a software patent gives no useful
information for creating or improving software. All patents are writen
in a sufficiently cryptic language to prevent them from being of any
use. Once decoded, the patents turn out to be for something so obvious
that programmers find them laughable.
[Comment] numerous generalisations plus a spelling mistake and semantic
error that clouds the meaning.
It is not funny because the cost of defending against nuicance
lawsuites is huge.
[Comment] Childish, poor use of language plus another spelling mistake.
The UK patent office grants software patents against the letter and
the spirit of the law. They do this by pretending that there is a
difference between software and 'computer implemented inventions'.
[Comment] Unclear! If you are going to petition the Government and ask
me to join you, make your point clearly!
Some companies waste money on 'defensive patents'. These have no value
against pure litigation companies and do not counter threats made
directly to customers.
[Comment] I am not sure how this is directly relevant to Software
Patents and why I should oppose them, perhaps better use of language
could clarify that.
Whilst the author's heart might be in the write place, his/her head
isn't and their spell checker is obviously broken!
In my opinion this piece does little to explain clearly and concisely
why I should oppose software patents and in fact goes some way to
placing a hurdle in front of prospective signees, who, for the most
part, are more likely to click the 'back' button than they are to seek
out the meaning.
