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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Yes ... i know this is old mail I am replying to ...
  I got a big mailbox :-(


I think that if we had to have software patents at all, it should
be as understood by Nick.
  This would be coherent with patents on "software with hard
implementation in chips", and would not interfere too much with other
essential issues such as:
  - shareware
    where duplication is encouraged, as a means of propagation, and
considered separately from actual use (which requires paiement)
  - development of open-source software can proceed freely (research
is not covered by patents), and propagation/redistribution of software
is not covered by patents.
  - it is still possible to have CDROMs that include a lot of software
that most people are not going to use (or to distribute vis free
CDROMs, eg in magazines), without paying for patents on software used
only by a small fraction of the people. So distributions remains easy
(as for shareware).
  - some means have to be devise to retrieve the money from actual
users (so at least they know what they pay for, and to whom, like in
the US sales tax model). From individual users that may be a bit hard
(but they do manage for recorded music, don't they), and from
professional users, it is much easier, exactly as it is for current
enforcing of copyrights and prevention of piracy.

   Lots of details to be worked out ... of course.

This would be essentially a "shareware model" of patents. You have to
pay if you use it, but it is perfectly legal to disseminate software
that includes it without any obligation.
   I think is pretty much also what JP Smets is proposing in his
userights model.

  Though, I still believe that software patents are fundamentally
stupid, and not justified by any economic/technological study, but
only by the very altruistic beliefs of the IP professional community.

Bernard Lang


On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 12:20:42AM +0000, Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote:
> Nick Fleming wrote:
> > 
> > Jean-Jacques de Jong wrote :
> > 
> > > As regards interpreted languages, IMHO a software patent would only
> > > apply to the binary code temporarily produced by the interpreter. So
> > > only a user would fall under the patent, not the distributor of the
> > > program.
> > >
> > 
> > Ah, I see. That would make sense. What that really means then
> > is that actual USAGE of the patented material constitutes an
> > infringement - regardless of whether the software was compiled
> > or interpreted. I like this idea, as it allows distribution of ANY
> > software, in ANY form without penalty (copyrights allowing
> > of course), and places the burden of responsibility with the
> > actual users.
> > 
> 
> Whoops, not exactly. I also mentioned elsewhere that the distribution of
> binary code would be an infringement. Look at my first answer to
> Jean-Paul Smets' post "Facts vs. Intention", there are some further
> clarifications (and open questions).
> 
> These arguments are just an opinion based on the laws and on the purpose
> of the patent system (dissemination of knowledge). I would indeed
> suggest to use them for defense in an infringement suit.
> 
> JJJ
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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