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

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

Greg,

  There are many studies, analysis, both theoretical and practical on
the usefulness of patents in general or in various fields.  They do
not all conclude identically, but they do exist.  A very interesting
one was published by the US National Academy of Sciences on biotech
patents.

  My challenge was motivated by your assertion:
 
>   Wrong - SOME economists do not think that software patents help.
>   Some economists DO think software patents help

  Obviously, you have nothing to back it, other than your gut feeling,
aka your prejudices.

  You pretend to be a scientist, but that requires more than knowing
lots of facts about science, or getting a degree.  What you have is
opinions, and you state clearly that you are not interested in any
attempt to gather objective data or abstract analysis.

  You assert that we should make the patent system better, but you
should then first assess what are the qualities that make the system
better. And before that, you should define what "better" means.  For
me "better" means (in this context) : producing more economic and
technical wealth, while not introducing unacceptable ethical or
societal problems.  You may have other aims (state them).  Making the
system better cannot be dissociated from a choice of objectives, and
an evaluation of the means to achieve them.  There is no such thing as
intrinsically better, without a statement of purpose.  And if you do
that, you are back to the original question : are patents (or other
forms of protection) useful, in what fields, and in what forms ?

Here are some quote for you to meditate (sorry, it is in French, but
I am translating best I can).

>   La science, dans son besoin d'achèvement comme dans son principe,
>   s'oppose absolument à l'opinion.

Science, in its need for integrity as well as in its principle,
absolutely opposes opinion.

>   On ne peut rien fonder sur l'opinion, il faut d'abord la
>   détruire. Elle est le premier obstacle à surmonter.

Nothing can be built on opinion, it must first be destroyed.  It is
the first obstacle to overcome.

>   Pour un esprit scientifique, toute connaissance est une réponse à
>   une question. S'il n'y a pas eu de question, il ne peut y avoir
>   connaissance scientifique.

For a scientific mind, any knowledge is an answer to a question.  If
there is no question, there cannot be any scientific knowledge.

>   G.Bachelard "La formation de l'esprit scientifique" 1938
     http://www.lbte.univ-mrs.fr/DEUG/conseilsTER.htmlemacs

   And, let me, once more, remind you that your own US Constitution
subjects the privilege of patents to the condition that it "promote[s]
Progress of Science and useful Arts".  If you think you cannot prove
that this condition is met, draw your own conclusions.
   If you think that you cannot do anything about it, however
unconstitutional it might be, then what ground have you to think that
you can improve (in whatever sense) a system that is currently serving
so well those who control it.

   As far as I am concerned, you have disqualified yourself.  There is
no more point in discussing gut reactions than in discussing faith.
You have it or you don't.  There is no rationality, hence no ground
for discussion.

Bernard Lang

---------

On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:07:59PM -0500, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Bernard asks:
> >Now I CHALLENGE YOU to exhibit economic studies that concludes to
> >the economic and technological usefulness of software patents in the
> >long term.
> 
> Whoopee.  I CHALLENGE YOU to exhibit economic studies that concludes to
> the economic and technological usefulness of patents in the long term
> for any area of technology - software, hardware, mechanical, chemical,
> electrical.
> 
> My gut reaction is that any studies on the economics of patents going
> forward in this new century will find either positive or negative
> impacts that similar to all of these fields of technology - software,
> hardware, mechanical, chemical, electrical.  I cannot say right now
> if the net impacts will be positive or negative, but I will bet that
> whatever the impacts are for each industry, they will be similar.
> Because once again, there is nothing special or holy about software.
> 
> If your interest is to make the patent system better, make the whole
> patent system better, not just some artificially defined subset.  If
> your interest is to get rid of the patent system, make the whole patent
> system your target.  But as a practical matter of strategy, relying
> on illdefined economic and semantic arguments to attack software 
> patents is a waste of time.  It won't change the status quo, it won't
> improve the quality of the system, and it won't help victims of
> suffering.
> 
> Greg Aharonian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
         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