[Patents] Re: Technical effect

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 07:40:30PM -0400, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >They have so far failed to check whether software patents do promote
> >such progess [as inspired by the US constitution].  So has the EPO.
> >And so have you.
> 
> You can make that claim about any mature technology - electronics,
> biotech, pharmaceuticals.  To many biotech researchers in the US,
> it is more important to get an NIH grant than to get a patent.
> In fact, it is quite difficult to measure the economic impact of
> patents, i.e., are patents inhibiting progress, and would the lack
> of patents promote more progress.  Yes, I have failed to check
> whether software patents promote progress because a) I am not sure
> if one can create an detailed enough economic model to measure
> such effects, and b) I do not have the funding to gather and
> analyze the data if it were possible to do so.
> 
> So while I won't argue that software patents promote progress because
> I don't have the data to argue so, I also don't have the data to
> argue that software patents are hurting progress, and that there would
> be more progress if there were no software patents.  And no one else
> has such data to argue one way or the other, especially everyone on
> this list.
> 
> So hoping to fight off reform of 52c by arguing about progress is a
> waste of time because there is no conclusive data to argue one way
> or the other.

Sorry man, but the fact that something is difficult to assess is no
excuse for not trying.  Quite the opposite actually.  That is the way
science and progress work, and I will doubt the competence of anyone
who holds a different view to judge on matters pertaining to the
progress of arts and sciences.

> With regards to "evil", it is a totally idiotic word to use - the
> second you say that to the lawyers and corporations in Europe that
> are trying to get rid of 52c, they are going to stop listening to
> you completely, and ignore your arguments.  "Perverted" is just
> as bad - use the words, and people will ignore your arguments,
> even those parts of your argument that make sense.

I think you fail to understand the situation. It is a pure question of
power, not of reason. These people will not listen to us anyway.
   So words do not really matter.

> Look, what Europe decides to do with its software patenting laws is
> up to Europeans.  I suspect they will get rid of 52c to bring EPO
> practices into conformance with the "laws"

   what laws ??? ... you means bring the law in conformance with their
powerplay practices.  Make burglary or speeding legal because it
cannot be stopped.

> and to be more harmonious with the US.

   What a programme ...  I can't wait

>  I can also sympathize with arguments to keep and
> toughen 52c (not that I agree).  All I am saying is that you guys
> on this list are not doing a very good job of convincing me, and
> that you need to find better arguments.

Considering that you won't even try ... as you stated above yourself,
what would be the point for us.

 Law is only the proper way to state policy, as consistently as
possible, with the effects in mind ... all the other discussions are
essentially not relevant.  The effects to be sought for, in the US,
are stated by your constitution.  But you said yourself it is not
worth trying to take it into account.
   I guess that does indeed close the discussion.


-- 
         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