From phm@a2e.de  Fri Oct 13 08:03:34 2000
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 10:03:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] simple questions

> > Speculating wrong.  There is no empirical evidence that developments
> > in IT have stagnated at any time in the last thirty years.
> 
> Speculate:To conjecture without knowing the complete facts.

Greg just said that the result of your speculation is wrong, not the
wording.

As a speculationg about the result, you might refer to the research of
Bessen & Maskin

	http://www.researchoninnovation.org/patent.pdf
 
> Allowing a behaviour that breaks a law because of lack of
> enforcement(nowadays) is not the same that allowing the behaviour
> thanks to a law(future). Economic consequences wouldn't be equivalent.

Why?
I don't see a big difference, except that, since software patents are
against the law in Europe, they often can't be enforced and people don't
go to court but rather wait for November.
 
> Many of us would be grateful to you for ever if try to differenciate
> in a law when soft is for "embedded systems" and when "pure software".

I don't believe Greg would advocate such a law.  He was referring to facts
of today's patent assertion behavior.  It seems that embedded systems are
easier and more often chosen victims.

I mentioned this possibility in my "Third Paradigm" page

	http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/bante/

This is somewhat of a foul compromise, since the line between "embedded"
and "running on a reprogrammable computer" allows a weak monopoly in an
area where even a weak monopoly could be harmful.  The result might be
that thousands of patent owners want royalties for parts of an embedded
system, generating huge transaction costs, which the builder of the
embedded system will avoid just by making it a reprogrammable computer.

However the distinction "physical" and "logical" can be made sharp and is
well founded in European patent jurisprudence (see
http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/epue52/).

-phm





