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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Dear Prof. Endres

  Just one question. How do you justify that the computer scientist
can own his work and the mathematician cannot ?

And if you will permit a remark regarding your point 5.  Information
and knowledge are naturally public goods, according to the definitions
of economists.  Food, land or minerals are not. It is not a matter of
taste or political choice.  It has to do with the natural properties
of these goods.

   And regarding what should or should not be made a property, this is
to be decided on the basis of public interest, to maximize economic
and technical growth.  It is the case that economists do not think
that software patents help, as the IPI study published by the
commission shows quite clearly in its section 3.

   The fact that you can come up with specific couter-examples is not
relevant.  It is the general macroeconomic effect of having software
patents that matters.

Cordialement

  Bernard Lang


On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 09:49:33AM +0100, A +W Endres wrote:
> 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
> 
> .

-- 
         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