[Patents] Re: your mail

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2000 at 10:40:36AM -0000, John Smith wrote:
> > > There are many other words that are regularly being exploited by
> > > patent ideologists for creating confusion.  Such as
> >
> > >   intellectual property
> >
> >    which is highly biased politically (see Orwell's Newspeak).  A
> >ressource does not have to be a property.  The word should be
> >"intellectual resource"
> >
> > >   non-obvious
> >
> >    always was absurd, since when 2 people apply for the same patent
> >whithin a few days, it is still considered non-obvious.
> 
> Now we really are in the realm of Newspeak. Property of course is owned, 
> but 
> if it's a "resource" then it's anybody's. Maybe you should read Karl Popper 
> some time.
>
> If you deny that intangibles can be property do you also oppose copyright? 
> Trade mark protection? Design protection?

all I am saying is that it is a resource in essence. I am not denying
that it can be property, but that it can only be property.

This resource may or may not be turned into a property.

Using systematically "intellectual property" denies the fact that it
could not be a property ...  and indeed it is much more naturally a
public good, as you well know.

> As for absurdity, Hartmut Pilch accuses me of repeating myself, but nobody 
> seems to get the point: there is no "theory of patents" which obeys a 
> higher 
> logic and will satisfy the European mind. It's an ad-hoc collection of 
> rules 
> designed to protect investments. "first-to file", which is what Bernard 
> Lang 
> seems to be objecting to,

no ...

I object to the fact that something is considered non obvious when
someone else finds it independently within a year. No one should get
the patent.

> is admittedly rough justice and the US alternative 
> - first to invent - is more equitable, but at a horrible price. If patent 
> lawyers were really so evil we'd all be lobbying for the US system because 
> of the heaps of money to be made out of it.


I am aware of that .. and did not take position.
 ...  but, though important, this issue is not high on my current
priority list.

> In the end, all legal systems have to call a halt to litigation somewhere 
> in 
> the interest of legal certainly (be interesting to see what happens over 
> the 
> Florida ballot) and this is just as true in the patent field.

> I fear Greg Aharonian is going to be pretty disappointed when he gets the 
> translation of the German case on which Hartmut Pilch puts so much store. 
> As 
> for Kolle's paper, I must admit I've never heard of anyone taking him 
> seriously before...
> 
> "notobvious"
> _____________________________________________________________________________________
> Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com

-- 
         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