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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 07:21:05PM +0100, PILCH Hartmut wrote:
> 
> > To make the long story short: If software development likes to become
> > engineering, they cannot be satisfied with discoveries (as the ones
> > made by Pythogaras, Mendel and Maxwell), but rather go for inventions
> > (like Edison, Marconi, etc). To demonstrate that one's inventions are
> > "new, useful and non-obvious" the seal of approval of a patent
> > examiner can be more helpful than the acceptence by a journal or a
> > conference. I have been an editor-in-chief of a jounal for 15 years
> > and know how tempted one can get if one needs to fill an issue. That
> > is all, I have been saying.
> 
> That software innovations have some things in common with "inventions" as
> opposed to "discoveries" is an argument for making them patentable.  But
> not a sufficient one.


This distinction opposing "inventions" and "discoveries" is a matter
for philosophical debate. Some people believe that mathematics are
invented, are an artificial creation by the human mind.  It can also
be argued that physical laws are an artificial reconstruction of
reality, and that other reconstructions might be possible.  On the
other hand, other people believe that all uses of natural laws are
being discovered and where potentially existing before being known to
man.  Indeed, to take an example, I suppose you would agree that the
principle of a nuclear power plant is something patentable.  Yet the
remnants of natural equivalents have been discovered (I am not talking
of stars), see for example "Natural Fossil Fission Reactors"
    http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/centre/waisrc/OKLO/
 Furthermore, there is technically no difference between an algorithm
and a mathematical proof (see Curry-Howard, how many times should I
repeat that ?).  This means, at least, that the invention/discovery
nature is essentially the same in both cases.

  On the other hand, there is an essentially contingent part in
software (and artistic) creation, precisely that which is protected by
copyright.

  This is not to say that I am against any form of protection of
inventions/discoveries.  Quite the opposite.  All I am asking is that,
for a given technical field, it be established that the chosen form of
protection is indeed a good balance between the conflicting interests
of the beneficiary and society, so as "to promote Progress of Science
and useful Arts".  And the parameters fixing that balance vary
quantitatively with each field, even though they may be qualitatively
present for all.

Happy Holidays

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