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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2000 at 11:41:47AM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Once again, Bernard distorts reality:
> 
> >Information and knowledge are naturally public goods, according to the
> >definitions of economists.
> 
> Wrong - information and knowledge are not naturally public goods, but
> rather an axiom assumed or believed by some economists.

 not an axiom, a definition... usable even by those in favor of
privatizing it.

> >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
> >Section 3.
> 
> Wrong - SOME economists do not think that software patents help.  Some
> economists DO think software patents help (in the sense that they think
> venture capital helps software development, and patents are one tool 
> that venture capitalists make use of to protect their investments).
> Given the subtleties of measuring the impact of patents, most economists
> say little specifically about the impact of patents, but rather create
> simplistic economic models to explore what the impact of patents MIGHT
> be.

still, the study paid by the European Commission with the explicit
intent to justify patenting came up with a negative result, which
explains why the Directorate General for the Internal Market tried to
hide that study for 5 month, but could not because other directorates
leaked the information.

> Your arguments are not going to be won using economics.  Not only is
> it hard to measure the economic impact of patents in general, but
> even harder to show how the impact of software patents is different
> from the impact of patents in other fields of technology.  For
> example, the US software industry is orders bigger than the European
> software industry, partly because the US has issued more software
> patents that have been issued in Europe.

  no proof ... see the IPI report

>  The US has issued more
> software patents than Europe because there is more innovative
> software development (and therefore a source of demanded products
> for the marketplace) in the US than in Europe, software patents
> which partially facilitate the economic success of the US software
> industry over the European software industry.  These last two
> sentences are about as economically justified as any other economic
> statement on software patent I have seen, or as unjustified.
> Neither are you going to win your arguments by claiming software
> patents restrict the flow of information, or suppress the progress
> of software development.  The former has no support in the law, and
> the latter has no support in most statistical measures of software
> development activities in the US and Europe.  IEEE software
> conference proceedings are getting so large and take up so much room
> on shelves that some libraries are just subscribing to IEEE's online
> library service (where you can search and then download PDF files of
> journal and conference articles of interest).  Greg Aharonian

I will not even bother to discuss.... and your text is full of
contradictions.

The point is that since patents are a constraint on freedom, it is up
to the people who want software patents to prove that they are
profitable to society as a whole.  As you are saying yourself, you
have no such proof.  Hence you are dismissed.

Have a drink

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