[Patents] [Freesw] gouvernement 'buy up' patents or copyright (fwd)

[Xuan Baldauf xuan--swpat@baldauf.org]

Hi!

Kristoff Bonne wrote:

> [...]
> So, we could simply impose the rule that all fully-neutral libre-software
> 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- that
> 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 source
code for my own product, I use it. If I'm an Internet Surfer and use Mozilla,
I use it too. You may say that the difference might be that for the latter, I
do not gain any money by using Mozilla. But if I'm using it in my own Internet
Cafe, I do. So I'd like to say that every software

(a) whose source code is publicy accessible (like GNU+BSD sw) and
(b) whose source code is compileable with publicy accessible tools (like the
GNU C compiler) and
(c) whose use is free of charge

should be able to use every sw-patent available. ("publicy accessible" is that
no one charges for downloading the software itself, except for "shipping and
handling" like traffic, dial-up costs and the like). The reason is following:
Patents are granted because developed technology should not remain to be a
trade secret in order to save the cost to reinvent the wheel. The advantage a
company with a patent compared with a trade secret has is that there may be no
other company which uses the technology to _create_ the same product. In an
open source environment, there is no commercial company creating the same
product with patented technology (and leaving the end-user with no choice to
either buy the original or a clone), there is always the possibility for the
end-user to simply download the product, build it and use it. Therefore there
are no lost revenues for the one company which are going to the other company
building the clone, because the open source software writer does not get any
direct money for building a clone.

This way we might have a new balance of open-source and closed-source
software: If a commercial software is so special that it is very likely that
it needed months of research and many money, and if it is patented, it will
remain commercial. This way, the investition is protected against other
commercial companies using the patent. If, at any point in time, the software
becomes general and therefore much need, surely there will be some open source
developers producing software using the patented algorithms for the public and
the masses. This way there will be a balance between open-source and
closed-source software: If there are less open source developers, there will
be more commercial software companies trying to gain revenues from their
software, so development will be pushed forward. If there are more open source
developers, the margin between patenting an algorithm and using it in
open-source software will be smaller, either pushing commercial development
harder or making it uneconomic. But because there are more open source
developers, development will be pushed forward.

What do you think?

I do not really like the idea, because it saves the open source movement to be
threatened by large software companies, but the problem small sw companies
against large ones still remains. (And I'm belonging to the latter.)

> [..]
>
> 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 second
> advantage for the 'society'.

So you maybe set different expiries for different patent types? Say drugs: 10
or 20 years, software: 1 or ½ year? With 6 months, I could live with it. Or
for every patent, you require the patent holder to list and prove development
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 doubled
costs. (But I do not like the latter because this increases the "state quota"
("Staatsquote"), the amount of money the public is spending compared to all
money spent).

Xuân.:o)