[Patents] Re: cute campaign?

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> >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.
> 
>   Maybe... But it SHOULD be defined; almost ALL legal decisions, bills
> and acts are arbitrary - they depend on someone's decision. If we can
> make something better, why not to be a bit arbitrary ?

I don't find this definition difficult at all.
The borderline is: industrial vs non-industrial.
Information is not industrial, because it can be replicated by copying.
Life is not industrial, because it replicates itself.
Aspirin can be patented, because in order to replicate it you need to go
through the industrial process that is patented.

see also http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52en.html
 
> >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.
> 
>   Yeah, there is. And patents are those that kill that good, novel,
> unobvious soft idea; if LPF has published the report 
> ("Industry at Risk"), you should have read it before you say anything,
> okay ? In that report, they've clearly pointed out, WHY software
> patents are bad at all.

Greg is right.  There ARE cases where patent protection, applied in a
sensible manner, could be seen as doing more good than harm.  see

        http://www.webnoize.com/item.rs?ID=4155

Imho these few cases should be sacrificed.  Some better way of
recompensing the creators should be found.  The Market is lame anyway, as
far as informational and other self-replicating values are concerned.

>   And one more thing - we, software makers, have the best protection
> in the world - copyrights. I think that copyrights are even more
> strict then patents, but do not have destructive influence on the
> market - and really they are RIGHT, not privilege like patents.

The distinction between "right" and "privilege" is not an absolute one.
Imho both of these rights offer too little protection for recompensing the
creators of good informational works.  And both harm the public, patent
right much more so than copyright.  But this can't be generalised.

> So, to change anything, first we must raise awareness and gain
> attention - and do it well; what will happen later, we will see.

I'd say all approaches are welcome.

Certainly there is no need to accept the "necessity" of "getting real" and
start bargaining on "source vs binary" or something of the kind the people
from the intellecto-proprietary complex would like to hear us arguing
about.  The only asset we have, the only reason why the patent legislators
might take us seriously, is that we have truth and economic soundness on
our side.

How do you like the logo and rhetoric of the FFII campaign: 

        http://swpat.ffii.org

I created some nice words for it, some already used above.

--
phm