🚀 go-pugleaf

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
"_" <_@_._> wrote in message
news:4114a7f4$0$4754$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> said the effects would be felt by all developers, not
>>> merely those who worked with open source software.

>> Complete and utter pack of lies.

> Rod you are completely wrong.

We'll see...

> Of course it affects all developers.

Complete and utter pack of lies.

>>> He said the wording in the FTA suggested Australia's
>>> software patents law and US laws would be harmonised.

>> Complete and utter pack of lies. It does nothing of the sort.

> FTA section 17.9.14

>      Each Party shall endeavour to reduce differences in law and practice
>      between their respective systems, including in respect of
>      differences in determining the rights to an invention, the prior art
>      effect of applications for patents, and the division of an
>      application containing multiple inventions. In addition, each Party
>      shall endeavour to participate in international patent harmonisation
>      efforts, including the WIPO fora addressing reform and development
>      of the international patent system.

Soorree, nothing like what that fuckwit claimed.

ALL the patent protection HAS BEEN THERE SINCE LONG
BEFORE THE FTA WAS EVEN A WET DREAM, FUCKWIT.

And 'shall endeavour' cuts no mustard, fool.

>>> "The US patent system for software has been broadly condemned
>>> as flawed by many industry observers, even by the former Patent
>>> and Trademark Office director himself," Scottt pointed out.

>> Wota terminal fuckwit. ANY system has some flaws, fuckwit.

> Many of the s/w patents granted by the US PTO are not really valid.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the FTA, fuckwit.

> They are either too broad or cover well known practice.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the FTA, fuckwit.

> The US PTO leave it to the courts to figure it out.

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the FTA, fuckwit.

> BTW I have a number of these patents (both US and Australian)
> and have dealt with the process over the last decade

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the FTA, fuckwit.

> (of course my patents are completely valid :)

Completely and utterly irrelevant to the FTA, fuckwit.

> In some ways any changes to reduce differences will be
> a good thing, at least for those who apply for patents.

Not a fucking clue, as always.

>> There is NO provision in the FTA that requires us to adopt their system, fool.

> Not precisely

Not at all.

> but as mentioned we are to minimise any differences

Just waffle, fuckwit.

>  From http://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/negotiations/us_fta/guide/17.html

>  8.3   A Cooperative Framework and Further Work (Article 17.9.4 and 17.9.5)

> These Articles provide for cooperation and best endeavours
> to reduce certain differences in the patent laws and practices
> of Australia and the US and in international fora.   In addition,
> they encourage work towards the mutual exploitation of search
> and examination work.   This will benefit users of each system.

Just waffle, fuckwit.

> So while not a great deal there will be some change.

Nope. And nothing like that fool claimed.

>> Our patent system will NOT be changed by the FTA and whatever
>> silly stuff applys to the US system, APPLYS NOW ANYWAY, fuckwit.

> Not really true.

Corse it is.

> It's harder to get granted s/w patents here than in the US.

And that wont change, you watch.

>>> He said huge software houses had the resources to obtain patents.

>> And most dont bother, even in the US system, fool.

> Rubbish. You obviously don't follow it closely enough.

Even you should be able to bullshit your way out of
your predicament better than that puerile shit, child.

>>> Scott also warned that there were an equal number
>>> of issues which would arise with the introduction of
>>> DMCA-style legislation, also mandated by the FTA. "

>> We've ALREADY done our own, fuckwit.

>> And no FTA gets to force particular legislation here anyway.

> Quote (again from the FTA guide mentioned above)
> in reference to section 17.4.7 of the FTA,

>      "Implementation of this Article will require legislative change.
>       The nature and extent of those changes need to be carefully
>       explored.   Article 17.12 provides that Australia has a two year
>       period from the date of entry into force of the Agreement to
>       implement its obligations under this provision."

We've ALREADY done our own, fuckwit.

And no FTA gets to force particular legislation here anyway.

>>> He was referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
>>> which was signed into law in the US on October 28, 1998.

>> We've ALREADY done our own, fuckwit.

> As we are obliged to do so under WIPO treaties

So his claim is a complete pack of lies.

> however the FTA will bring in some changes to bring
> us  more in line with the methods used in the USA.

Complete and utter pack of lies on that stuff
that we HAVE DONE ALREADY, FUCKWIT.

>> Its done and dusted, fool.

> Yep.

So its mindless hyperventilation is just that, mindless hyperventilation, fuckwit.