[Patents] economic studies

[Bernard Lang Bernard.Lang@inria.fr]

I think Greg is scratched ...

   playing the same groove over and over

      Too bad


Bernard


On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:19:10AM +0100, phm@a2e.de wrote:
> Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> > Bernard writes:
> > >and since it does impact the freedom of programmers, since it does
> > >a cost in reducing competiton and increasing monopolies, since it does
> > >have a cost in reducing fundamental freedom through the private
> > >control of biotech standards and communication formats and protocols,
> > >etc... but does not "promote Progress of Science and useful Arts"
> > >software patents are both unconstitutional in the USA, and generally
> > >harmful to society.
> > >Thanks to Greg for the proof.
> > 
> > And since biotech patents do impact the freedom of biotech researchers,
> > and do have a cost in reducing competition and increasing monopolies,
> > since they do have a cost in reducing fundamental freedom through the
> > private control of biotech standards and commericalization formats and
> > protocols, etc... but does not "promote Progress of Science and useful
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> On what evidence is this assertion based?
> sidenote:  Your talk about "biotech standards and .. formats" is
> hilarious.
> 
> > Arts", biotech patents are both unconstitutional in the USA, and
> > generally harmful to society.  Thanks to Bernard for the proof.
> 
> No, there is no proof yet.
> If it was to be given, then it would be a sufficient reason to get rid of
> biotech patents.
> But that is not a matter for this discussion round.
>  
> > Same logic for hardware inventions as well.  In any field you can claim
> > that there are enough researchers, especially academics with public
> > funding, to promote the progress of science and useful arts without the
> > need of patents.  Any field, including software.  Once again, there is
> > nothing special or holy about software, so your arguments against
> > software patents once again are arguments against the whole patent system.
> 
> This again is an extremely bold statement not backed by evidence. I
> mentioned some serious studies and experiences that show that at least in
> chemistry and pharmaceutics, patents seem to produce a market pattern that
> is more conducive to progress of science and the useful arts.
> 
> > Indeed, an increasing amount of profits in the hardware design world
> > are from the sales of semiconductor IP, i.e., VHDL/Verilog
> > descriptions of new hardware devices and systems, at last count, over
> > $500,000,000 a year.  The developers make no products, just designs,
> > mostly using software tools.  And they use the IP laws, patents
> > especially, to protect the works.  But someone from another planet,
> > watching two rooms of people, hardware designers and software
> > designers, wouldn't see much behaviorally different - a lot of humans
> > typing on keyboards and looking at results on screen.
> 
> We all agree that most of these are "software patents".  The
> distinguishing criterion is not the form in which the idea is embedded but
> the question whether the contribution lies in the realm of logics or that
> of matter aka new experiences with natural forces.
> 
> > And increasingly the same with biotech re bioinformatics.  
> 
> Most patents in those areas are "software patents".
> Which is apparently the grounds on which you claimed them to be harmful
> (see above).
> 
> > The informational is increasingly playing a bigger role in all fields
> > of technology, so arguing against the informational to be patented is
> > increasingly arguing against all patenting.
> 
> "increasingly all" = "an increasingly high percentage".
> Using the word "all" in there is misleading.
> And finally you do know how to distinguish between "the informational" and
> the rest.
> Your concern is only, that this rest may be shrinking.
> Don't worry, it is not.
> If the patent offices limited themselves to that rest, they would still
> have a steady growth of patent applications.
> Now they have an explosion which they can't handle.
> About 10% per year.
> 
> > So whatever the pluses and minuses of software patents, increasingly they
> > are no different than any other field of technology.  So anything done
> > to software patenting should be done to all fields of technology - 
> > there is nothing special to distinguish out software patents.  Patents
> > in general are a tradeoff, and tradeoffs imply costs and benefits.
>  
> > So just confess.  You all are against all forms of patenting.
> 
> You yourelf just confessed that you are against all forms of
> patenting.  Or maybe you meant that you are against the progress of
> science and the useful arts.  You can, by the standards of what you said,
> choose only one of the two.
> 
> Most people on this list are just concerned with software and perhaps "the
> informational", but don't have a strong opinion on patents in general.
> 
> -phm
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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