[Patents] public interest and appropriation instinct

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:18:52AM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >But since you want to quibble, there is (fortunately) no free biotech,
> >like there is free software.
> 
> Wrong again, Bernard.  Much of the human genome sequencing efforts
> around the world are funded by governments, and all of the results
> are put in the public domain.  That is as free biotech, as open source
> is free software.  And given that much DNA is known to be informational,
> these biotech efforts can easily be called wet open source.  Once again,
> nothing special about software.

indeed, my mistake ... but you could have tried to understand my
meaning.  I meant to say that free software can be developed by
individuals with little funding, and little control, and contribute to
wealth.  This is neither possible, nor wishable in the case of
biotech.  And those people are blocked by the patent system, since
they have no funds.

> >And free software does contribute to society to the economy, whether you
> >like it or not.
> 
> Once again, you put words in my mouth.  I never said that free software
> doesn't contribute to the economy, nor do I deny its contribution.  Come
> up with a better lie.

why call names ... ?  I did not say that you have one opinion or
the other.  It only seemed to me you might not like it, and since you
are great at picking on details, I try to do away with them beforehand.

> In fact, you open sourcers are late to the game.  It was invented by
> physicists and mathematicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who regularly
> swapped large computer programs in source code form amongst research
> institutions. I used to do computational physics in the early 1980s,
> and swapped codes, ironically, with researchers at CERN.  It was no
> surprise to me that a physicist there came up with a useful tool (HTML)
> and shared it with the world - physicists at CERN had been doing that
> for decades.

it is too bad you do not read my papers.  Would save you some writing.

> Similarly, my Web site makes a nice contribution to society, and uses
> mostly free software.

it is.

> So come up with better lies.  I fully support anyone who wants to donate
> their software contribution freely to the public.  I also fully support
> anyone with an novel and unobvious software technology to get a patent on
> it.  It is a choice that they should be free to make, a freedom they get
> to take advantage of.

sorry... you are mixed up:

  - giving is up to the person, given that he has a way to do othewise

  - keeping is based on state protection, hence is first up to the state.

Now, as I said, I do believe that it is often a good thing that the
state protects IP, for a limited time.  It all depends on a balance of
benefits and costs.  And I am still waiting for any other rational
explanation.  You may dispute the parameters, and hence the final
choice, but not the principle of the system.

>  I guess you want to restrict part of their freedom in the name of
> the state.

  Whatever freedom you have is state granted.  For most people. The
alternative is big clubs.  You should read Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

>  I don't suppose you are writing some open source software to make
> the trains in Europe run better on time?

no idea what this has to do with it ... but they run fine.  We even
sell some to the USA.  And the French railways do use Linux.

-- 
         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