[Patents] Re: [Patents] Benefits of free software.

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Excellent example ... thank you

it clearly demonstrates the dangers of combining copyright and patents.

If a technique is patented, it will be used exclusiveley in
proprietary software, which it is forbidden to modify, and probably
not feasable technically for lack of source code information.
Hence the user is put at risk.

 Hence, if software patents are used, it must be compulsory to forfeit
copyright protection. Which does means that someone can possibly read
the code and come up with an other way of doing the same stuff. So the
software author has a choice : either he has a really innovative and
smart technique, and he will rely on the patent for protection, on the
assumption that his patent is really innovative and useful, or he will
not be so sure and choose the copyright protection.
  This would not be too bad, with self elimination of trivial patents
(i.e. 99%).

  The only danger is cheating, by putting the patented part in an open
library module, while keepin the rest under copyright protection. But
then, the module would have to have a well defined interface, hence
replaceable by a different module with the same functionality.

  I am wondering whether we can get something reasonable out of all
this ?

Amicalement

  Bernard

BTW: would anyone have the source code for the game SupaPlex .. an old
game ... a kind of boulderdash look alike, for windows. But I guess it
is proprietary and lost in the trash can of computer history.

On Mon, Sep 27, 1999 at 07:40:34PM +0100, Nick Fleming wrote:
> Dear Everyone,
>     There seems to be a lot of confusion over the role
> of free software in business. Speaking as one whose
> livelihood depends on providing the service of writing
> custom software for a number of customers, I know
> from first hand experience the positive effect that
> free software has on business. A few years ago, I was
> asked to port an image system that relied a
> patented  image compression format to one
> that would give comparable results under Windows NT.
> The reasons for this were that the ****  development
> kit (name withheld for obvious legal reasons) 
> was not supported under NT and as it was a central
> part of the port for Year 2K compliance, a suitable
> alternative format was required. I choose JPEG for
> four simple reasons:
>     1) Because it was mature technology - It had few bugs
>         thanks to the sheer number of people fixing them.
>     2) The source code was well written and maintainable.
>     3) There were no licencing restrictions i.e. no hidden costs.
>     4) The source code was freely available.
> The last part was particularly important. If the company
> I worked for went out of business it was important for
> the customer to have control over the contents of its
> image database over a long term, and did not want to
> repeat the **** experience.
> 
> Without free software, it would have been impossible
> to meet the customers needs and by now, it would have
> been in serious trouble.
> 
> According to my calculations, the only DIRECT threat
> free software poses to business are to those businesses
> who sell software as a complete 'Off the shelf' packages.
> - where the free software provides the same features as
> its commercial counterpart. Everyone else benefits to
> some degree, except in very rare circumstances.
> 
> Software patents on the other hand have the potential
> to do far more damage- as my own experience shows.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Nick F.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 (1) 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 ;(1) 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX