From Bernard.Lang@inria.fr  Wed Dec 27 13:02:14 2000
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 14:02:14 +0100
From: Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr
Subject: [Patents] patent pools enforcing per-copy-licensing mode of software development

On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 07:19:11AM +0100, A +W Endres wrote:
> >    Patents is not about a right to use, but about a right to exclude
> > others, even if they discover things independently and can prove it.
> > It is about restricting the liberty of others.
> 
> Yes, it restricts the liberty to make money from somebody else's
> invention. It is assumed that re-inventing a known thing has little value
> for society. Therefore publishing of inventions is encouraged. What
> am I missing? Should I be more in favor of re-inventions?

 The issue of reinvention is discussed by economist, but forget it.
In the case of software the investment is essentially negligible for
most patents (except for the patent fee).

My only point is that patents in general restrict liberty.  When
freedom is resticted, one has to justify that restriction, and that is
all.  If available information is not convincing, then there is no
reason to restrict freedom.

> >  Hence would you advocate patenting mathematical proof, or keeping them
> > secret.  If not, could you explain why ?

> I am afraid this is an hypothecial discussion. An invention combines
> knowledge from an economically relevant domain in some novel way to
> solve a problem.  I doubt whether this is the same as a mathematical
> proof.

Not only intuitively the same ... but provably so (Curry Howard).

>  If it would be, I think that the proof (as such) would
> indeed have the same function in a patent application that is given
> to a program. As you know, it is not the expression (of the
> solution) that is being patented, but the content (of the solution)
> as a recipe for others to use. It has to be understood by the
> "average" professional in the field. From this (and the legal
> tradition) comes the bias for natural language.  In the case of
> computer implementable inventions this recipe can be illustrated by
> an accepted design notation (where computer scientists would have to
> agree upon) or by a program in any popular language (maybe even in
> Prolog or other non-procedural notations). This illustration has the
> purpose to convince the examiner (representing society) that the
> recipe works. If a mathematical proof can serve this purpose, that
> is OK with me. Again, patenting can avoid that a solution (and its
> illustration) is being kept secret.

But in most cases, patenting is not needed for disclosure.  It is
imposed by the very use of the invention.  So why should society
bother with protecting the monopoly ?

> >    Last point: why would engineers be privileged to own their
> > discoveries, and not mathematicians ?
> 
> I have nothing against mathemations owning their inventions or engineers
> making discoveries. I only said that scientist are more likely to make
> discoveries, and engineers are more likely to make inventions. In my
> vocabulary, I use discovery for something that pre-existed and was not
> created by an individual or group.

I understand your vocabulary, but have no reaon whatsoever to believe
that your distinction has any meaning.  I challenge you to give me an
objective criterion.

On the other hand, the distinction between tangible and intangible is
a clear one  (Turing notwithstanding).

And I am suprised you devote so little effort trying to protect the IP
of mathematicians.

-----

But the heart of the problem remains.  Why should society protect your
invention/discovery/creation/whatever ?  What does society get out of
it ?  To what length should it go to protect you, given its limited
resources, rather than do things for other people ?

Sincerely

  Bernard Lang


-- 
         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




