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

[PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de]

> 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.

Actually the economics monography

        Patente, Wettbewerb und Fortschritt
        Patents, Competition and Progress
        http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/wuw-kaufer70/

of Erich Kaufer 1970, which studies mainly patents in the truly technical
areas, starts out with an introduction which sets the stage by saying that
information is a public good and thus restricting its flow causes
economically suboptimal effects which must be justified by benefit.  That
study doesn't find it difficult to come up with that justification, and it
also mentions that the justification works better in areas with a "high
degree of empiry", such as chemistry and pharmaceutics.

Kaufer's approach is standard thinking in economics textbooks, and there
is nothing specially original in the way he sets the stage for the debate.  
The originality lies in the way he explains under what conditions
monopolistic effects of patents can become a major problem and what forces
may alleviate that problem.

Of course we are always free to discard the conventional explanation
system and create a language of our own. I sometimes have the impression
that Greg is already doing just that.  Probably some Turing inspired
language based on predicate logic in the light of co-design tools, with
the capability of freely converting between words, algorithms, chemicals,
airplanes and galaxies.  That would explain my difficulty of understanding
some of his statements.

-phm