[Patents] Bessen & Maskin reply on software patent paper

[Francois PELLEGRINI francois.pellegrini@labri.u-bordeaux.fr]

        Hello all,

Jim Bessen wrote:
> 2.) "software should have no
> intellectual property protection on principle" (unbalanced anti, e.g.,
> Stallman)

        Well, the existence of the GPL shows that software should have some
sort of protection, even in Stallman's views : the GPL is a contract
that
protects software against some practices, i.e. restricts freedom. Here
again,
it is a matter of pros/cons. The BSD licence is even more open...

> In other words, if you lose the present battle, all is not lost. The
> battleground just shifts to one over the practical implementation of IP.
> However, if you argue that software patents are wrong on principle, and
> then you lose, it will be difficult to build support and continue.

        I do not fully agree with you.

      Many of us feel themselves right in fighting IP for software because
of
economical evidence that they are detrimental for SMEs, which represent
more
than 60 % of the jobs in the area, and should thus be preserved.
Evidences of
the harmfulness of patents in general (and not only software patents)
for SMEs
have been collected independently (see for instance
http://info.sm.umist.ac.uk/esrcip/background.htm ;).
        Plus ethical reasons, of course, but these would have no weight in the
current playground if software patents were beneficial for the whole
economy.
And this is indeed why pro-patents in Europe do their tricks undercover.

        If we lose on this battlefield, we can still work on how to make the
system less harmful. But in no way should we base our strategy on the
assumption
that we will lose. We cannot say that a system is detrimental and at the
same
time argue on how to improve it. It would be a failure in terms of
communication.

        Regards,

                                        f.p.