[Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: [Patents] Re: source vs binary.

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Some people have privately remarked to me that my language has been
a bit strong, possibly offensive to some people.

I wish to stress that at no point I have been aiming at someone in
particular. If it may have looked so, it was totally unintentional.

If I express very strong resentment to the EPO (which I tried to
convey with strong words), it is aiming at the institution that has
been betraying the responsibilities it has been given.
  I do know that many individuals there do their jobs honestly, to the
best of their knowledge, but the institution as a whole has been
mismanaged. There is work they should have done... which they never
bothered to do, such as understanding and studying the effects of
extending the patent system to new areas. They are rich, and should
have been putting that money to good use.

  I would however add something for their defense: it was probably
unavoidable. Why, because it was set up by an international treaty and
they do not have to answer for their actions. It is the same problem
for all these international organisations ... the people who work
there are too protected, and too far removed from the only legitimity
there is: the voters.

  How could OECD dare negotiate an internal treaty like the
Multi-lateral Investment Agreement in secret. It is as if the congress
or the parliament were hiding to discuss the law so as not to be
accountable for the policies they support... The fact that government
commissionned them is no excuse or explanation. Governments are not
supposed to make the laws (only to propose them for discussion), and
that in itself is already distorting the democratic process, and
transforming parliament into a registration office.

   That is really where the problem is... sorry if we are far from
software and patents. ... and ther is no simple answer to that
problem.  In a way, we are back at the beginning of the eighteen
century, when they were trying to figure out how democracy should be
organized. The scale has changed, and the context (the INternet for
example) and this may require rethinking the system.


On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 02:21:50PM +0100, Bernard Lang wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 1999 at 09:58:37AM +0100, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> > Nick Fleming wrote:
> > > 
> > > Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> > > 
> > > >You must distinguish between source code and binary code. Distribution
> > > >of binary code clearly falls within the scope of a patent, even in
> > > >Europe. The question is what happens with the distribution of source
> > > >code.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Why should there be a distinction between binary and source ?
> > > Many languages are interpreted rather than compiled, and
> > > modern executables usually contain enough debugging information
> > > to be viewed + understood (if not completely)  with a dissassembler.
> > 
> > Simply because source code is human readable whereas binary code is not.
> > The source code is a human readable expression of the operation of a
> > program. The teachings of a patent are meant to be disseminated: someone
> > cannot be sued for doing that. The distribution of source code of a
> > patented program is only another means of disseminating the technical
> > teachings.
> 
> this is pure nonsense... and you know it, since the source code can
> be changed into object code without human intervention.
> 
> I will not admit to stupidity, even supported by lawyers.
> 
> > Source code is to software what detailed plans are to a device.
> > 
> > > ...
> > > Software therefore, must be an expression of an idea, (and covered by 
> > > copyright) 
> > > rather than an invention in its own right.
> > > 
> > 
> > That's another battle. We must now admit that software is patentable and
> > find a way to distribute open source software without risk.
> > 
> 
> Sorry .. I admit nothing ...
> 
> The EPO has been distorting the law it was supposed to protect. That
> is no reason to endorse. It is reason to fight the bastards. By all
> available means.
> 
> In any case, any time you admit something to the bastards, the just
> use it a a base to ask for more. There has to be a line, and it is
> behind us.
> 
> Bernard
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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