From phm@a2e.de  Mon Jan  1 19:01:48 2001
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 20:01:48 +0100 (CET)
From: PILCH Hartmut phm@a2e.de
Subject: [Patents] patent pools enforcing per-copy-licensing mode of
 software development

> > In fact, now that the easy money is not longer out there, I suspect there
> > will be more interest in the open source world to more fully protect
> > their intellectual properties, i.e., software. 
> 
> Other points are correct but this one is clearly wrong.
> 
> Patent fees are so expensive that no independent programmer can afford
> filing patents. Open source is not an exception.

The real problem for free software is that by obtaining patents, the
author will not "protect" but rather harm his software.  Moreover, by
publishing his software, he will largely render his patent forceless.

Some IBM patent spokesmen recently, when urged by journalists, stated that
they believe opensource software and patents can work together well.  But
that statement was rather awkward, since they weren't able to explain how
that could work, let alone point to any model case where it has
worked.

What Greg writes was said before not only by IBM but also by Robert Hart
in the IPI study.  It was one of the lamest of his arguments, others being
the distortions of facts criticised in

	http://swpat.ffii.org/vreji/papri/clsr-rhart97/

Some arguments are so much below normal intellectual standards that I see
no need of replying to them.  But apparently you saw a need, which is why
I made this addition.

Prof. Endres at least makes things clear, when he says that we must choose
between either patent-supported true software-engineering or more or less
hobbyist and uninnovative opensource-based software development.  This is
a respectable viewpoint that can be subjected to tests, because at least
it is honest and consistent.

-phm





