From phm@a2e.de Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:46:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:46:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] Re: minimalising the damage

Nick Fleming wrote:
 
> I am in the process of trying to contact the UK
> government on the subject, but so far no real
> progress. The UK Patent Office to its credit
> has been very helpful, but I agree, politicians
> are hard to reach, and they just dont seem to
> grasp the problem. I am going to draft an essay
> on the whole subject of software patents this weekend
> and mail it (snail mail) to EVERY mp I can.

I got a response from the German Ministry of Justice this week
(to my letter dated june 18) which I published in excerpts
on swpat@ffii.org.  Yes, it does show that the people there don't
grasp the issue.  They claim that the EU is planning no effective
change, only harmonisation.  The line of argument is like that
from the French patent office published here.  I will see if I
can find out by telephone, whether these people really understand
as little as they pretend to.
 
> One point I would like some input on is, assuming the
> worst, what limits should be placed on software
> patents ? I personally would like to see no patents
> granted for software optimisations (like IBM have
> been trying to get) that are dependent on a certain
> configuration of hardware. e.g. new and novel algorithms are ok, but
> general optimisations based on
> compiler quirks (compiler or language dependent) should
> be ruled out - as this sort of optimisation is the
> main part of our everyday job.

What I find more important is the way the patent system applies.
There is no reason that the same mechanism should apply to
volatile things like software as to industrial hardware.
Some things to demand are imho:

- shorter period of validity (3 years)
- applicability only to proprietary software
  (this in harmony with basic rules of the patent systems.  one should
  continue to distinguish industrial from non-industrial / scientific)
- licensing conditions must be fixed at the date of publication at
  non-discriminatory terms, applicable to every end-user on an equal
  basis, not exploitable for monopolistic platfrom strategies.
- the patentee must collect the license fees himself or place this burden
  on someone who sells proprietary software implementations of the patent,
  but not on someone who distributes free or shareware implementations.
  The latter are only obliged to inform the end-user of his duty to
  pay a license fee.

These conditions are by no means harsh to the patentee.  They would make
software patents a very lucrative business (nowadays even trademarks and
name rights are lucrative!) while not using pre-information-age methods
to interfere with the information flow of our age.  
 
-phm





