[Patents] Third Paradigm between Patent and Copyright

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Sun, Oct 01, 2000 at 04:29:27PM +0200, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> Please comment!
> 
> http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/basti/indexen.html
> 
>      _________________________________________________________________
>                                                                          
>    
>               Third Paradigm between Patent and Copyright Law
>                                       
>      Some scientists and politicians have argued for a "Third Paradigm"
>       between patent and copyright law, i.e. for an specially tailored
>     exclusion right (ius sui generis) for abstract-logical innovations.
>       Others have warned against allowing any type of appropriation of
>     abstract-logical concepts: on the one hand side such property rights
>    would very often not compensate the really cost-intensive part of the
>     software innovation process, while on the other hand side generating
>       high public costs by limiting important freedoms. Many software
>      developpers and IT entrepreneurs consider software copyright to be
>       "quite sufficient" or even "perfectly tailored to the reality of
>      software innovation". Yet few would doubt that a "Third Paradigm"
>     could serve as a transitory solution for converting legacy software
>                patents into a universally acceptable status.
>                                       
>    
> Soft Patents for Harware Logics
> 
>    Innovative processes for whose implementation not more than a new
>    computer program running on known hardware is needed, could still be
>    monopolised in those cases, in which they do not run on a universal
>    computer. Thus, if a car maker does not choose to lay out his motor
>    control device for customer-side reprogramming (making it more costly
>    and less safe), he would probably prefer to pay moderate license fees
>    to a patent owner.

  I did not understand this example  ... can you rephrase it.

> Logilege: Use Privilege for Abstract-Logical Innovations
> 
>    The owner of a logilege (logical innovation use privilege) discloses
>    an innovative abstract-logical method and enjoys exclusion rights on
>     1. application of the method for commercial purposes
>     2. implementation of the method in property-restricted objects (e.g.
>        in proprietary software)
>        
>    for three years starting from the day of disclosure. Nobody may be
>    excluded from
>     1. the right to use the method for achieving interoperability
>     2. the right to publish the method in freely republishable
>        information works (e.g. free source code) with an appropriate
>        pointer to the usage restrictions
>        
>    The disclosed logilege description comprises a reference
>    implementation

as used to be the case for patents, if I remember correctly

> and a set of claims. The logilege description must
>    satisfy strict formal and material requirements so as to make it easy
>    for the public to access the description and test whether it meets the
>    requirements.
>    
>    The logilege enters into force on the day of its disclosure. There is
>    no examination procedure.

good ... since they have no value anyway ... 

> The owner guarantees that claims are valid
>    by paying a deposit of 10000 EUR, which will be paid to the first
>    netizen who succeeds in proving the invalidity of the logilege.
     =======

you mean "person" ... I do not see why someone should be excluded for
not having internet access.

> One
>    serious flaw, such as an inadmissible claim, suffices to invalidate
>    the whole logilege. Posterior narrowing of claims is not allowed.
>    
>    Logileges can be granted for those innovations which due to lack of
>    concreteness or physical substance (technicity) fall out of the
>    classical patent system. The lightweightedness of abstract-logical
>    innovations requires a fast and unbureuacratic procedure, while the
>    great public cost, that any privilege on abstract-logical innovations
>    is likely generate, demands a high degree of responsibility on the
>    part of the privilege owner.


I think the patent system should work like that, possibly with longer
validity.

  Only courts would decide whether the patents are valid.  And patents
busters could make a good living.

Bernard


-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX