![[translatable text]](/img/icons.other/txt.png){kind=icon}
![[howto help]](/img/icons.other/questionmark.png){kind=icon}
![[printable version]](/img/icons.other/pdficon.png){kind=icon}
![[Readers' Comments]](/img/icons.other/groupedit-en.png){kind=icon}
Professor at University of Maryland, College of Information Studies, Center for Information Policy. Criticises the consultation paper in detail, starting from implicit assumptions. Explains that software patentability in the US has not been the result of a well-informed democratic decision process and that there is very little evidence to support any claim that it has been beneficial. Directs attention to the relation between innovation and standardisation and notes a growing conflict between patent practise and open standards, which are of particular importance for software development. Warns that Europe, as a late comer, would gain even less and suffer even more than the US from the negative impacts of software patentability. Labels this paper as 'work in progress' and offers more references on request.