From Bernard.Lang@inria.fr  Wed Dec 27 10:21:14 2000
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:21:14 +0100
From: Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr
Subject: [Patents] public interest and appropriation instinct

On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 08:07:19PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >>And patents restrict freedom.
> 
> >One reason a few people here keep expressing uneasiness with this
> >argumentation may be that it is so simple and clear.
> 
> And meaningless.  Software patents restrict the freedom of
> software engineers no more or less than patents in other fields
> restrict the freedom of engineers in those fields.  Worse, because
> people in other fields have less to worry about for loss of 
> freedoms through copyrights, which also restricts the freedom of
> software engineers (and like it or not, the GPL also restricts
> the freedom of programmers as well).
> 
> In terms of loss of freedom (which is a mostly unsubstantiated
> charge leveled against software patents), biotech researchers
> and developers probably suffer more loss of freedom than software
> engineers.


thanks for explaining ... I said nothing else

I said patents restrict freedom - period. In any field.  Simply
because, as a state granted monopoly,e, they forbid use of techniques.
That is undisputable.

But since you want to quibble, there is (fortunately) no free biotech,
like ther is free software.  And free software does contribute to the
economy, whether you like it or not.  You may not like the
contribution, but it does exist.

> Nothing beign stated here is rigorous enough to differentiate the
> patentability of software from any other form of technology -
> hypothetical losses of freedom, impediments to progress, threats
> of lawsuit, representation as information, etc.  Software is just
> the next technology in a series of technology that the patent
> system has had a lot of problems digesting.


Most arguments are applicable to other fields. Not all, and you know
it.  Even the IPI report that was written in support of patenting
agrees to that.  And they do not apply quantitatively the same way.

Hence their costs varies, as well as their benefits, according
to techical fields, both for society and for the patentees.

My only remark is: when restricting freedom in the name of society,
since it is the state that enforces IP, the state has to make
reasonnably sure that it works in the public interest.
   As it is supposed to do in any other circumstance.

This is just the elementary basis of democracy.

You were told all of this already... and your comments below are just
uncouth and frivolous.

You are disappointng.

Bernard Lang

> All of the arguments here then against software patents are equally
> applicable to all other fields of technology, making these arguments
> against the patent system as a whole.  That is an interesting argument
> to make, which none of you have the guts to make, instead hiding
> behind the banner of anti-software patenting.  And frankly, I think
> many of you don't even like copyrights as well, which also restrict
> freedom as well.   Heck, why not take it all the way and argue
> against all forms of private property?  Oh yes, they tried that in
> Europe, and it failed miserably.  I guess we Americans get to 
> watch you guys do it all over again.  Pass the buttered popcorn.
> 
> Greg Aharonian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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




