Re: Gregnews: US report proves EP lies

    > The problem only comes from the criterion of "technical character" 
    > which has been used in various actual or proposed patent laws.

    I don't understand what you mean. "Technical character" is the first of
    the four requirements for patentability.

Yes, that is exactly what I mean.  Using that criterion (in some countries)
is the source of the problem.

    That depends. I'd say the term "information technology" is even more
    dangerous for the public's understanding of the software patents debate
    than the term "intellectual property".

I have not seen it myself.

    > But I don't think that the question of how to interpret "technical 
    > character" has much effect on whether the public (or legislators) 
    > favors software patents.

    I am sorry, but "technical character" is the key criteria in swedish
    patent law tradition (and I guess in other german traditions as well).

I believe you, but we're talking at cross purposes.  I'm talking about
what affects _the public_'s opinion of the issue.  "Law traditions"
are mostly unrelated to that.

My campaigns about terminology can influence some of the public, but
not lawyers thinking about law traditions.

    > But I don't think a campaign on our part against that term would 
    > deliver much effect on judges.  The people who listen to us mostly do
    >  not have much contact with judges.

    I thougt this discussion was about sloppy use of the term "information
    technology"

Yes.  And I'm saying that such a campaign would be ineffective for
influencing how judges interpret laws and follow its traditions.
I don't want to start a campaign against a term mainly the hope
of influencing judges.

That has to be done some other way.