[Patents] Re: Hypothetical Example

[hellmuth@ira.uka.de hellmuth@ira.uka.de]

Nick Fleming wrote:
>     Now, this software technology is licences and is distributed
> in the form of a computer program only. This is because, although
> key parts of the software are patented, in order to protect the
> patents,  and to reduce the risk of piracy, the company does not
> distribute the source code.
> 
>     Just after you buy the licence, imagine that you discover that the
> database can only hold 10,000 names and addresses. Your customers
> require a minimun of 50,000 preferably double that for future
> requirements.
> 
>     So, you ask the owners of the patented technology if they can
> increase the size of the database and imagine your suprise
> when they say no - no available manpower, not possible due to
> time constraints etc.. (plus the possibility that the code is so
> poorly written it isnt scalable..)

Sorry, I don't get it. We've got the same situation today. You buy
(commercial) database packages or libraries without source code and if 
you get a crappy product you can either fold or find something else 
(or complain and then fold ;-( ). 
This is a disadvantage of commercial software when compared to open 
software but has nothing to do with patented software versus non-patented
software. 

You yourself provide the ammunition to twist your example around by saying:
'altough ... patented ... the company does not distribute the source code'.
Mr. "Softlobby" will counter:
" Doesn't this imply that they could distribute the source code more easily
since it is patented, and only choose not to do so because of other reasons? 
So patents will encourage companies to ship software with the source code. 
Isn't that wonderful. Just what you wanted, more 'open' source." ;-)

                                                        Holger.