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

[Gert Wollny wollny@cns.mpg.de]

Didier Metzen wrote:
> 
> 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?
Just some ideas: To create compatibility (say - write a driver for
another OS or some software which uses the same dataformat for
exchange), for security (backdoors & co are more visible if you see a
decompiled version or even the source) and to learn and make better
solutions.  

Best Regards

Gert 


-- 
--------------------- may the source be with you ---------------------
http://gerti.home.pages.de