[Patents] Patent system run for consumers or producers?

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> > But the patent system is supposed to be run for the benefit of consumer=
s
> rather than producers.
>=20
> No. Patent system is an economical regulator. It permit=92s inventors to
> manage their =93return of investment=94. Patent system is used to benefit=
 to
> the whole community including consumers, firms, and employees.
> And I agree Harmut's comment, according the court has not to take in
> account such consideration.

Here you are not really contradicting Ed.  Consumers benefit if a lot of
good software is written.  That is why the "return of investment" is an
issue.  But "return of investment" isn't an end in itself.  And whether
software patents help the most innovative software companies to get a
better return on investment isn't at all clear.  In fact many experiences
and studies suggest the opposite.
=20
> >=85software needed to be kept free from patents because it belonged to t=
he
> realm of immaterial activity, which is outside the scope of the patent
> system.
>=20
> Immaterial activity doesn=92t imply =93dreamlike economy=94. Immaterial
> activities become =93intangible assets=94 when they result in juridically
> identified objects. Patents are such juridically identified objects, and
> small companies have a burning need of such =93objects=94 in order to bui=
lt
> their economic identity and to assuring their long term stability.

Still, there is on the one hand a legitimate public interest in keeping
the immaterial world free.  As the Liberal Party of Germany said in its
press declaration:  "the thoughts must stay free, even when coagulated
into software".

On the other hand copyright and a lot of other mechanisms provide viable
ways for software companies to acquire tangible assets.  Moreover, patents
often conflict with these ways.
=20
> I agree that such considerations are quite faraway form concerns of
  ^^^^^^^

With whom do you agree?

> software consumers, free software distributors, or computer scientists
> financed by public organizations. It seems that in software patent debate=
,
> free software activists only take in account a short-term purpose.=20

I don't agree on this point, and I find it unfair of you to keep
reiterating this rhetoric.  Stefane already told you that many of the
signataries of our petition are software producing companies. =20

Moreover, people who work in public organisations tend to have more time
to look at long-term purposes than people who are directly under the
constraint of working for money.

> But, in my opinion, disregarding the legitimate interest of software
> firms is a mistake, and would damage the future of software industry.

Agreed.  That is one reason for me to be against software patents.

-phm