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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Hi Prof.  Andres

On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 06:19:25PM +0100, A +W Endres wrote:
> Hello, Mr. Lang,
> 
> Bernard Lang schrieb:
> 
> >   Just one question. How do you justify that the computer scientist
> > can own his work and the mathematician cannot ?
> 
> Basicly, my position is that computer science is both science and 
> engineering.
> 
> Which part is dominant is part of a lively discussion. I am mostly inclined
> toward the position expressed by Dave Parnas.

I do not know Parnas'position.

> My other point is, that scientists (including mathematicians) are
> typically making discoveries, engineers make
> inventions. Traditionally, discoveries belong to humankind,
> inventions to the inventor. This is the tradition. I am aware that
> some people like to change this.

No ... it is not the tradition.  There simply evolved a legal system
that gives time limited monopolies in exchange for some
economic/technological return for society.
   Inventors never had an exclusive right to their invention, but were
GRANTED a privilege of monopoly, in return for some contribution to
society.  You are the one who wants to change things.  The only
purpose is the public interest... and public interest has to be
exhibited when extending the range of patentability.

   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.

   I am extremely surprised that you are not aware of these simple
facts.

  But you did not answer my question.  Having been for many years an
expert in software engineering, you are aware that there is
fundamentally no difference between an algorithm and a mathematical
proof, as was established 20 years ago by Curry and Howard.  Hence
would you advocate patenting mathematical proof, or keeping them
secret.  If not, could you explain why ?

   Last point: why would engineers be privileged to own their
discoveries, and not mathematicians ?

> > 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.
> 
> You must be reading different economic literature than I do.

 Possibly.  This only happens to be elementary economic theory.

  I suggest you use www.google.com, type "public good" and take the
first answer.
     http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/2000/06/15publicgood

   "Public goods are non-excludable and non-rival in consumption."

   exactly like software, and intangible resources in general

   But you can probably find several thousand papers explaining that,
or ask the first economist you happen to meet.

> I think it is too restrictive to limit the concept of properrty to
> physical goods.

why not ... but what is your criteria for deciding what is to be owned,
by whom, for how long, and how.

>  Of course, information goods like music
> compositions and airplane designs have different properties than
> potatos and copper wires.

> >    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.
> 
> I think that is what the current discussion is about. I only want to
> avoid the impression that only one opinion is taken as the "public
> opinion",  if I feel that is not (yet) the case.

I am talking of public interest, not public opinion.
The issue requires economic, technological, sociological analysis, in
order to decide where the public interest lies.

Public opinion is essentially irrelevant.  Even corporate opinions.

I wish, since you are so eager that everything is taken into
consideration, that you had been more vocal when only those in favor
of patenting were the only ones speaking.


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