🚀 go-pugleaf

I find the wording in the Dec. 20, 1991 GATT draft re: patents highly
ambiguous.  I find no reference to the inclusion of software in the
language, so if the intent is there, it is a back door kind of thing.
(Compare with the compulsory licensing language and crackdown on piracy
via copyright, which is quite explicit.)

I just did a NEXIS search of both mainstream and legal sources and found
no references to the extension of patents to software internationally
via the GATT either.  I did, however, find lots of testimony, etc. by
Carla Hills et al. on compulsory licensing and piracy issues.

What makes folks think that the new GATT would mandate recognition of
software patents?  I'm not disagreeing, I just need some evidence.  The
extension of patents to *processes* is indeed there; but that is a different
legal issue for the benefit of other industries, primarily pharmaceutical,
at least according to Bush Administration rhetoric.

What am I missing here?  Or is Stallman & Co. making an argument based soley
on the ambiguities in the text of the new draft itself?
-- 
Steve Barber                                             sbarber@panix.com
"The direct deed is the most meaningful reflection." - Bill Evans
The above is not a legal advice. It is, at best, a discussion of
generalities. Consult your attorney before acting in a specific situation.