From kristoff@mccb.be.eu.org Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:38:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 17:38:51 +0200 (CEST)
From: Kristoff Bonne kristoff@mccb.be.eu.org
Subject: [Patents] [Freesw] gouvernement 'buy up' patents or copyright
 (fwd)

Greetings,


On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Xuan Baldauf wrote:
>> So, we could simply impose the rule that all fully-neutral libre-softwar=
e
>> are free to use any software-patents without having to pay for it.
>> (I use 'fully-neutral' to exclude the projects -like mozilla or KDE- tha=
t
>> give special privilige to certain companies to use this 'open' code in
>> their 'closed' programs).

> The definition of "use" may vary. If I'm Netscape and use the Mozilla sou=
rce
> code for my own product, I use it. If I'm an Internet Surfer and use Mozi=
lla,
> I use it too. You may say that the difference might be that for the latte=
r, I
> do not gain any money by using Mozilla. But if I'm using it in my own Int=
ernet
> Cafe, I do. So I'd like to say that every software

I set up this rule, to make sure that open-source projects would not get
used to 'bypass' patents by competing companies.
Take the following situation:
- Compamy A owns a software-patent.
- Company B want to use it, but does not want to pay for it.
So, it sets up a open-source project that uses the patent (but does not
have to pay for it).
But, as 'initator' of the project, company 'B' gives itself the right to
use the open-source software in its own closed programs.

I don't think we want this.


That is why I would give this special priviledge only to the 'viral' types
of licences (like GPL) that only allow its code to be used of the 'larger'
program also use the same license.

If you would give this privilege to type of licences that allow the code
to be used in 'closed' code (like the BSD-type of licences) you would just
end up with the situation as described above.


>> Ony could ask this question:
>> IMHO, one could say that -if there was no patenting-system for (say)
>> drugs- there would be less medication available and this would for sure
>> NOT be a good thing for the society.
>> So, the 'cost' of patenting drugs is much smaller that its advantages.
>> And, this costs disappears after the patent expires and -as these drugs
>> are still needed and produced after that amount of time- this add a seco=
nd
>> advantage for the 'society'.
> So you maybe set different expiries for different patent types? Say drugs=
: 10
> or 20 years, software: 1 or =BD year?

A good idea,
I think the main purpose is to think very carefully about wthat the exact
purposes is of patents in the 'knowledge society'.
IMHO, patents itself are not 'BAD'; but they must be subject to other
'limits' that the patents that exist today.

Limiting the life-span of a patents and giving the Patent-Offices more
power to revoke/retract/liberate/buy-out patents are two possiblities.


> With 6 months, I could live with it. Or
> for every patent, you require the patent holder to list and prove develop=
ment
> costs. If the patent is worth for the public much more than the double of=
 the
> development costs are, let's the state to buy out the patent for the doub=
led
> costs. (But I do not like the latter because this increases the "state qu=
ota"
> ("Staatsquote"), the amount of money the public is spending compared to a=
ll
> money spent).

I'm not a real expect on the economics of research, but ... from what I
see in the area of telecom-engineering, for every project that 'make it to
the marked' there have been 10 others that have stranded halfway. (but
have also costs money to the company).
So, the money made by that one project that DOES make it must be
sufficiant to pay the costs of these other projects.
Hence, I don't mind the governement having to pay a 'bonus' a bought-back
patent.

(Most of the projects in the 'public institutions' do not produce any
usable result neither and also cost a lot of money. I guess that is just
'the nature of the beast').
Perhaps can somebody who knows more about the economics of research
confirm or deny this?


But do mind, if you make it to easy for the gouvernements to 'buy up' the
most profitable patents, the private sector will not be prepared any more
to invest a lot of money into research, and that is something we do not
want neither.
On the other hand, we don't want to end up in a situation where companies
just create patent to be bought up by the governement; and live of that
profit on that.

I think, the governement should 'buy back' stuff, mainly based on the
'social relevance' of it; and that 'costs' is just a side-factor in this.


I guess we need a balance between the needs or the commercial companies
and the needs of 'the society'; and that is where 'democracy' steps in.
It is the parlement who 'check up' the budget of the governements so it is
OVERTHERE that the ultimate control must be on the governements activites
concerning patents.


Cheerio! Kr. Bonne.
--
kristoff@mccb.be.eu.org          fax: +32 59 333072
multi computer club Brugge/Unix: 'unix-info@mccb.be.eu.org'






