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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Tue, Dec 14, 1999 at 08:24:33PM -0000, Nick Fleming wrote:
> Dear All,
>         I was only pointing out that the boundaries
> between forms of software are not distinct, as 
> wollny@cns.mpg.de put it :
> 
> " "source" and "binary"  describe only a state of
>     abstraction of the description of an algorithm."
> 
> It still means that interpreted languages such as
> TCL and PERL have to be distributed openly,
> in human readable form. For these languages
> the boundry between source and binary is irrelevant
> - the source code IS the program. That is why I believe
> that making laws to protect one FORM of software is
> wrong - and therefore the EPO's decision to allow
> patents on BINARIES is wrong. Anyone want to
> pass a law banning interpreted languages to make
> the law more clear ? (No e-mails please I'm JOKING!)
>     Greg Aharonian and Jean-Jacques de Jong are right
> though - we're stuck with software patents (for now)
> and need to find a way to work within the legal system
> to make them fair for everybody.

we are not stuck yet in Europe ... and some people with clout are
beginning to worry. So there is no reason to give up.

And if we stop it in Europe... it may force the issue in the US
because it is not at all clear that patents are a competitive advantage.
It block innovation by restraining "free trade" of ideas.

> Having said that,
> I agree with Bernard Lang on one point: Just because
> there is a law on something doesn't necessarily make
> it right. Otherwise, if a government made hanging children
> under four years old legal, we'd all agree it was fair..right ??

BTW it was legal in the Roman Empire... and may be in Sparta (I do not
remember exactly... someone with better memory)

>     Note to the 'anti-everything' brigade : Patents, when
> applied correctly, are bloody useful. They allow large
> companies to do business without parasitic companies
> draining them of funds. Patents also allow small
> companies some protection from large aggressive
> companies from stealing market share

I do agree with that ... patents can be useful, depending on economic
and technological factors. 

Read for example:

Intellectual Property Rights and the Dissemination of Research Tools in
                           Molecular Biology
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5758.html

there is a HTML version ... http://books.nap.edu/html/property


One key issue is that while patents are historically a privilege, they
are now seen as a right. And people do not realize that it does not
concern a privilege/right to use the "idea" but to prevent others from
using it ... on what basis ?

The only reasonable basis is economic incentive for technical progress:

 8.  To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries;
                                             U.S. Constitution
... then does it apply to software.

-- 
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