[Patents] How to prevent a patent

[Xavier Drudis Ferran xdrudis@tinet.org]

Pierre Bresse:
>> Than, you can disclose this information on this mailing list. These
>> information becomes "prior art" and prevent somebody else to file a
>> obtainable patent claiming the same technical characteristics, or similar
>> characteristics that are obvious.
>
PILCH Hartmut va escriure el Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:05:17 +0100 (CET)  :
>As Greg told us, they may not be of much use as proofs, unless stored in
>some village library in paper form with a time stamp.
>
Yes, Mr Aharonian's post was very helpful and to the point. It seems there 
are 
two opinions on this. I don't know the law. If I was too choose I'd 
choose Mr. Aharonian's and Mr. Hartmut's view of publishing it in timestamped 
paper. Just to make sure. 

Pierre Bresse:
>> And you have to renounce on protecting your invention. This is your right.
>> But please, do not impose such renunciation to everyone. Industrialist 
>> often
>> can¹t simply dissipate their innovations.
>

Renouncing to protect inventions, Mr. Bresse?. Maybe you're running too much, 
even if you didn't care about the ethical neither macroeconomic effect of 
patents (which would be quite a lot to ignore), even for the "inventor" it 
isn't always the best option to patent. Maybe in some field it would be.
In many (software, games, business models, literature, law) it certainly isn't
always the best option for the "inventor", and never for society. 
Often you'll want your invention public, 
available for all, and want as many people as possible using it, implementing 
it and evolving it. And that just to increase your profits, let alone 
benefits for society or peace of mind. Sometimes the best protection is 
publicity. In fact Mr Weaver asked possibly in hope to protect his 
invention. To protect it from patents by someone else.

I don't like this jargon "protection of property", as if ideas had owners 
and asking for privileges was legitimate defense. I understand it is the 
stablished jargon in the field, but it is worth noting it is loaded with 
preconceptions.

PILCH Hartmut va escriure el Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:05:17 +0100 (CET)  :
>If you publish knowledge, then it is no longer your property.  If you dont
>want to dissipate it, then dont publish it.  The patent system allows
>people to publish and own knowledge at the same time, but that is an
>unnatural exception that can only be justified where it promotes progress.

Moreover, it is fundamentally against the equality principle that someone 
(the "inventor") can do something and someone else can't do the same thing. 
Everybody should have right to do the same things. Patents are the renounce 
of people to these rights in certain cases, and as such should be clearly 
justified and avoided where no clear justification exists. 

PILCH Hartmut va escriure el Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:05:17 +0100 (CET)  :
>For many industries, business secret and some other strategies provide
>enough of an incentive for innovation, so that there is no need to impose
>renunciation of natural rights on everybody.  Please stop imposing this
>renunciation on us and try to look for an honest job.  I am sure you can
>find one.
>

Well, I don't think it is such a dishonest job. Pushing for more power 
to patent lawyers and the like isn't altruistic, but it is just minding 
one's businesses. Mr. Breese's job would be clearly dishonest if I was to 
do it, but he probably has some other values that are compatible with 
the job. In any case, it is like defending the guilty, somebody has to 
do it for the system to work. I am much more worried for people at large 
allowing them to get too much power than for they trying to get it.

Anyway, Mr. Hartmut, could we try to concentrate in the benefits of different 
possible regulations instead of in the perceived value of the people in the 
discussion?. We will only start flame wars if we start accusing one another.

--
Xavier Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org