[Patents] patent pools enforcing per-copy-licensing mode of software development

[A +W Endres endres-sifi@t-online.de]

Dear Mr. Pilch,

  unfortunately, I did not see your message before 12/23. It is really
amazing to see your reaction to my questions to Mr. Pellegrini. Let me 
make a few points only:

1. I had pointed to the MP3 example in our November 8 discussion in
order to explain a few points. Here you have a set of valid patents
issued between 1986 and 1996 for highly respected and publizised 
inventions. If you would have looked at their licensing scheme, as
I suggested, you would have found four options. Three of them provide 
for a one-time paid-up license fee. If you use those, you can sell 
your software how you want. You may even give it away for free.

2. If users of a patent can organize themselves into bargaining groups
they may be able to negotiate even better conditions than the ones
offered to everybody else. I had this in mind, when I referred to the
Open Source movement collectively. I know that you first would have
to convince yourself that the other party owns something valuable, 
however.

3. Patents are publications. Neither the Bauer/Samelson push-down stack
patent nor the RSA patent (to which I also referred on Nov. 8) had any 
negative effect on the teaching and the popularity of both concepts 
during the last two to three decades in computer science. Being an 
expert on patent law, you should know that there are no restrictions 
on the use of patents for either teaching or research.

4. I have been exposed to the argument before that all useful research 
(and software development as well) is funded by tax money. It simply is 
not true. I heard that the portion may be around 7-8% of all research,
but cannot defend that number. For software product development it may 
be even lower, depending on how you measure.

5. That information and knowledge should be treated as public goods 
is part of an extreme political ideology (or maybe an utopia) that 
I do not adhere to. I agree, however, that no property is without 
limits. I, for my part, do not want to live in a society where 
everything I produce is taken away from me. Whether it is potatoes or 
information is the same in that respect. Nor do I want that others are 
forced to pay for whatever I decide to produce. Paying 30-50% tax on 
one's income to keep our public sector alive, is quite a burden already. 
By the way, information and knowledge are more likely the work product 
of individuals than are food, land or minerals. To me it makes more
sense if those are socialized than information and knowledge. As you 
certainly know, some economies are still trying to recover from such 
experiments.

6. What you have to say about universities and the German Informatics 
society (GI) is simply derogoratory and unfounded. I do not comment on 
that.

When we first met, I thought there might be some facts that you had not 
come across to. In the meantime, I have more and more the impression 
that you prefer to ignore most of them. This makes it difficult to argue 
with you.

Happy New Year, Al Endres

.