From Bernard.Lang@inria.fr Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:52:02 +0100
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:52:02 +0100
From: Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr
Subject: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Re:  [Patents] Re: [Patents] AGAINST PATENTS - from Critto from Poland


I do agree that there is no simple way to ban software from patenting.

Indeed it is possible to patent mathematical formulae, when they are
part of a larger device or process. And there is no reason why it
should not be the same for software.

  However, there is no way a mathematical formula, alone, represented
on whatever support, can be patented. The same should be true for
software.

On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:42:11PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >a "No software patents" campaign is a good idea
> 
> Despite being one of the biggest critics of the incompetence of patent
> offices (PTO/EPO/JPO) in examining software patents, this campaign is a
> waste of time, bordering on idiotic.  There is no way to statutorily
> define "software" cleanly enough to allow such patents to then be
> banned.
> 
> For example, hardware/software codesign philosophy and tools pretty
> much render moot any actual distinction between software and hardware,
> especially in light of representation languages like VHDL and Verilog.

not so ... one could simply ban any digital representation from
patentability. You think it is arbitrary ... may be so ... and not
more so than many other legal distinctions.

Only hardware specifically designed should be patentable (not
programmed hardware, such as a rom). You want a reason: only such
harware that requires high investment to be produced. The main
(socially acceptable) purpose of patents these days is to allows
investors to recoup their investment.

> So to ban software patents would require banning hardware patent as
> well.  Additionally, software patents were for some time "banned" in
> the US as mathematical algorithms (in light of court rulings), but
> still patented by crafty drafting of patent claims (usually by throwing
> in hardware into the claim).

it is the role of the patent office to reject that when it is
obviously artificial, which they have not done.
  The fact that they did a poor job does not justify changing the
rules.

> And occasionally, there is the totally novel and unobivous software
> idea (but not the 20,000+ a year according to the USPTO) worthy of
> being protected by a patent.

what do you mean ... one can patent ideas ?   ;-)

the funny thing is that I recently attended an IP meeting, and all the
professionals there kept talking about patenting ideas ... it says.

more to the point, the question is not only whether it is worthy
(though that is clearly important), but whether it is economically or
socially justified to grant such monopolies.

> So the solution is to fix the system (which can be easily done),

what is your proposal ?

> instead of these cute but pointless campaigns.

the purpose of "cute campaigns" is to raise awareness and create
pressure.  Buttons are not enough ... the must point to a site with
papers explaining the negative effects of software patenting ...
as much as possible relating it to the lives of people.

and people will not fix the system without pressure... it is pressure
that distorted it to begin with.



-- 
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




