[Patents] Economic assessment

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

I must note a standard pattern of objecting again and again to
Hartmut's arguments, which is an easy way to kill the discussion since
the matter of identifying "potentially patentable areas of knowledge"
remains a subtle one.

  But it is interesting to note that we never get any reaction on the
more basic question:
   What is the economic usefulness of patenting software in general ?
Economist think the effects are negative. So why do you want it ?

  We can later decide whether some hardware is equivalent to software,
or whether software subcategories should nevertheless be patentable.

   Quibbling on details is a time-honored startegy to escape dealing
with real issues.

   Bernard


On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:59:44AM +0000, Edward Avis wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> >So if Hartmut would like to apologize to me for continuing to be
> >so insulting, and to everyone else on this list for exposing them
> >to his insults,
> 
> Come on now... 'troll' isn't really an insult in the context of mailing
> lists or newsgroups.
> 
> >I would be inclined to provide serious counter
> >arguments, starting with the fact that there is no a-priori reason
> >why the patent system of the 21st century should not be adapted to
> >protect the informational, the leading TECHNOLOGIES of the day,
> >just as the MECHANICAL was the leading technologies of the 19th
> >century, and the ELECTRICAL/CHEMICAL was the leading technologies
> >of the 20th century.
> 
> No a priori reason why not; but the burden of proof is on those who
> claim that twenty-year monopolies _should_ be granted.  At least this is
> what the US Consitution specifies (to promote progress in science...)
> and I would expect similar criteria to apply in Europe.
> 
> There are certainly arguments that software patenting would be
> beneficial, but in my opinion (and, it seems, in the opinion of
> economists) they are outweighed by the disadvantages.  If you want to
> start discussing (on the basis of benefit to society, not of patent-law
> dogma) whether software patents are a net gain, please go ahead.
> 
> >If the expressionist elements of hardware
> >and software are protectable by copyright, and if the functional
> >elements of hardware are protectable by patents, especially in
> >light of hardware/software codesign tools, the functional elements
> >of software are and should be protectable as well,
> 
> There's that 'should' word.
> 
> I don't think that the fact that the patent system works in a particular
> way for hardware is sufficient reason to apply it in the same way (or
> what patent offices might consider to be the same way) to software.  We
> don't have patent laws for the sake of having a neat and tidy patent
> system.  We have them to promote progress and the spread of knowledge.
> On this basis, I believe that software patents run counter to the
> intent of the patent system.
> 
> -- 
> Ed Avis
> epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
         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