[Patents] Some good and sane solutions to several insane problems

[Didier Metzen didier.metzen1@libertysurf.fr]

Comments on Mr Krzysztof Sobolewski message called
"some solutions to patent system, software patents and our
cooperation&competition"

Many subjects in your message.

And some have a link with the subject of the message.

Let me comment these specific subjects:

A - Your proposals
==============
"
1. shortening patent protection period to, say, 5 years

2. obliging, by law, any patent owner to grant a license to
     anybody, who wishes to pay for it (even to competitors) -
     and thus, turning patent offices into 'patent supermarkets'
     or 'patent shopping centers'

3. finding more ways against software patents (eg, if 'source'
     code may not be patented, and only binary may, we may assume
     and proove that, even binary code is 'source' code in some
     way - anyway, it is _INTERPRETED_ by a tool called
     (micro)processor. That small chip is a 'firm' combination
     of software and hardware, and its connections and circuit
     is like lines of the code... Of course, legal issues may be
     more complicated, and I'm NOT a lawyer.
"

1: good direction.We need to list all possible arguments to defend a
shorter period.
    To do so, I think we need to understand the reasons and arguments
behind the
     current periods.

2: another good direction. License is probably the real root of all
current discussions
     on software patents and in general on patents.
     Small companies or independant developers cannot start by long
negotiation on a license.
    Which means that the license fee should be calculated
"automatically" under that
     umbrella or at least pre-negotiated.
    Also the above should be one of the multiple options for a future
patent owner. I think
     that the choice must be made at the date of patent fill-in. To push
in a direction or
     another, fiscal law can treat differently the different cases.

3: this is a pure trick to avoid patents. You address only patents on
pure software.
     However a lot of patents are using software only as a part of the
solution that is
     patented. I think that the famous Amazon patent is not really on
software.
     The debate here is on all patents on anything being developped for
the Global
     Information Infrastructure.
     And probably in fact on the global patents' system.
     I don't think this proposal is going to help. I don't think we
should limit the
     proposals on software only.


B - Copyright & others
================

"
  I don't like copyright law on some issues, too. For example:
prohibition of decompilation. That really stupid rule is making
lives of engineers more difficult. If you buy a radio, you always
may open it and look inside. If you 'buy' program - you may not.
Illogical and appalling.
"

I don't understand this point. Why do you need to decompile everything?
What's your goal here?
Even the comparison with the radio is strange. You are not supposed to
copy
the shematics of the radio or anything else like that.
The same for a software. (by the way, most of the current appliances are

very difficult to open and with all ICs worthless to look inside)


"
  So I propose changing COPYRIGHT LAW on software into something
more similiar to patents, anyway - only 'patents' on the one
particular copy, one application - the work, not the idea. And then all
the code would be 'open', and registered in some kind of office or
recording company. And anyone could study any code as em wish to.
And those, who wanted to use it, should pay - if only author of
such application demands such payment, of course. So, there would
be less distinction between 'open source' and 'closed source' -
any source should be open, but usage of part of it should be
for money, but of the other part - for free, according to the free
will of the author. Isn't it better ?
"

Once again, I don't understand your point on copyright vs patent
Copyright protects the work, the creation, not really the idea. Patent
protects the
 ideas/innovation through the way it has been implemented.
Patents and copyrights seem to pursue the same goal but on different
supports and with
different conditions.

I think we should work on the different types of license that should be
available to
customers purchasing a software. But not focus only on source code
avaibility.
I don't think that source code avaibility is THE solution.

On the method to be used within that forum, I basically agree with you.
We should define clear alternatives and explain, convince and so on.
We should also define our goal. That's helpful when trying to understand
if an
alternative is better than another.
And we should not forget the respect to others' alternatives or choices.



Didier Metzen