From halber@timsi.com.pl  Thu Apr  5 08:05:03 2001
From: halber@timsi.com.pl (Jozef Halbersztadt)
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 09:05:03 +0200
Subject: [Patents] Why Greg Aharonian is wrong
Message-ID: <001f01c0bd9e$c2cfe1e0$bb01a8c0@uprp.gov.pl>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
  boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C0BDAF.80575F30"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C0BDAF.80575F30
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am going to contest two main thesis of Greg Aharonian. He claims that =
patent offices can work better. He claims too that in all fields of =
technology there are problems with patents. Patent offices can work =
better as the US PTO works, because work of the PTO is often a disaster. =
The proposed by Greg remedies were from start applied in the EPO. In the =
EPO examiners have smaller load as in the PTO, higher wages, better =
databases and even better procedures (publication before granting). The =
result cannot be ignored. For example look for a rough analysis of =
Altavista indexing patents: 30+ were granted in the US, 2 were granted =
in the EPO. Nevertheless, it does not make difference big enough. Why, =
because any patent office grants as a rule and rejects as an exception. =
Alternative approach is unrealizable. Do you think that a public =
institution that rejects 90% applications can survive? In less developed =
countries there are powerful arguments for such an economical policy. =
But even there I cannot imagine reason for putting the brightest people =
into the patent office. The brightest are more needed as inventors, =
university teachers, entrepreneurs, and even political leaders. And when =
you accept that patent office personnel should be the second rate =
quality, it is reasonable not to give them too much power.

The second Greg's thesis - problems with patents are everywhere. Yes, =
but they are not the same problems. In the real world with must live =
with a distance between a real technical solution and its description. =
With sentences composed from words it is possible to describe essence of =
the solution in fields of technology like mechanics or chemistry. For =
them the distance between solution and description isn't big. It is =
because of help of drawings in mechanics and chemical symbols in =
chemistry. The problem is more difficult with electrical circuits. If =
the number of elements is above 20 or 40 the relations between them can =
become complicated. It is becoming impractical to describe their =
behavior in natural language. Drawings don't help much. And patent =
specifications, patent claims are written in natural language. In result =
applicants don't offer precise descriptions and patent offices are =
giving up from executions of all requirements. Computer related =
solutions create to examiners similar problems as complicated circuitry. =
Only the magnitude of the problems is significantly higher.

If one seriously thinks about improving quality of examination the first =
question mark should be put on language of description. The natural =
language should be supplemented by a special language specific for =
particular technology. In chemistry chemical symbols play the role of a =
specific language, in mechanics drawings with construction. As concerns =
software patents it is reasonable to propose that the natural language =
should be supplemented by the code. Such proposal was announced in the =
US a few years ago. It was very much market orientated approach proposed =
for proprietary commercial software. It has only one feature disliked by =
big business - simple compulsory license.

This proposal is very important. It is moving software patenting from =
field of fiction to the field of professional analysis. It doesn't =
eliminate disliked by participants of this debate paradigm of awards due =
to priority. But as I understand nobody on this list is opposing a =
system that is neutral to the division open/closed source. It is =
important to realize that thanks compulsory licenses, thanks treating =
code as language the proposed register system can be easy revised to =
accommodate open source needs. Only the license have to be slightly =
different for open source applications. That is why Eurolinux is =
mentioning the proposal in the letter to the European Commission.: "In =
case special anti-cloning protection is really demanded by the software =
industry, as the DGIM claims in its invitation paper, Mark Paley's Model =
Software Patent Act could provide a useful source of inspiration." More: =
http://www.eurolinux.org/news/pr0101/dgltr

The Software Patent Act should be put forward vigorously. It would =
eliminate 90% of silly software patents. Europe should give the proposal =
the second life. It is fully compatible with TRIPS. Any challenge by the =
US government in the WTO would end with a failure.

J=F3zef Halbersztadt


------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C0BDAF.80575F30
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-2" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>I am going to contest two main thesis of Greg =
Aharonian. He=20
claims that patent offices can work better. He claims too that in all =
fields of=20
technology there are problems with patents. Patent offices can work =
better as=20
the US PTO works, because work of the PTO is&nbsp;often a disaster. The =
proposed=20
by Greg remedies were from start applied in the EPO. In the EPO =
examiners have=20
smaller load as in the PTO, higher wages, better databases and even =
better=20
procedures (publication before granting). The result cannot be ignored. =
For=20
example look for a rough analysis of Altavista indexing patents: 30+ =
were=20
granted in the US, 2 were granted in the EPO. Nevertheless, it does not =
make=20
difference big enough. Why, because any patent office grants as a rule =
and=20
rejects as an exception. Alternative approach is unrealizable. Do you =
think that=20
a public institution that rejects 90% applications can survive? In less=20
developed countries there are powerful arguments for such an economical =
policy.=20
But even there I cannot imagine reason for putting the brightest people =
into the=20
patent office. The brightest are more needed as inventors, university =
teachers,=20
entrepreneurs, and even political leaders. And when you accept that =
patent=20
office personnel should be the second rate quality, it is reasonable not =
to give=20
them too much power.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>The second Greg's thesis - problems with patents =
are=20
everywhere. Yes, but they are not the same problems. In the real world =
with must=20
live with a distance between a real technical solution and its =
description. With=20
sentences composed from words it is possible to describe essence of the =
solution=20
in fields of technology like mechanics or chemistry. For them the =
distance=20
between solution and description isn't big. It is because of help of =
drawings in=20
mechanics and chemical symbols in chemistry. The problem is more =
difficult with=20
electrical circuits. If the number of elements is above 20 or 40 the =
relations=20
between them can become complicated. It is becoming impractical to =
describe=20
their behavior in natural language. Drawings don't help much. And patent =

specifications, patent claims are written in natural language. In result =

applicants don't offer precise descriptions and patent offices are =
giving up=20
from executions of all requirements. Computer related solutions create =
to=20
examiners similar problems as complicated circuitry. Only the magnitude =
of the=20
problems is significantly higher.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>If one seriously thinks about improving quality of =

examination the first question mark should be put on language of =
description.=20
The natural language should be supplemented by a special language =
specific for=20
particular technology. In chemistry chemical symbols play the role of a =
specific=20
language, in mechanics drawings with construction. As concerns software =
patents=20
it is reasonable to propose that the natural language should be =
supplemented by=20
the code. Such proposal was announced in the US a few years ago. It was =
very=20
much market orientated approach proposed for proprietary commercial =
software. It=20
has only one feature disliked by big business - simple compulsory=20
license.</FONT></P><FONT face=3DArial>
<P>This proposal is very important. It is moving software patenting from =
field=20
of fiction to the field of professional analysis. It doesn't eliminate =
disliked=20
by participants of this debate paradigm of awards due to priority. But =
as I=20
understand nobody on this list is opposing a system that is neutral to =
the=20
division open/closed source. It is important to realize that thanks =
compulsory=20
licenses, thanks treating code as language the proposed register system =
can be=20
easy revised to accommodate open source needs. Only the license have to =
be=20
slightly different for open source applications. That is why Eurolinux =
is=20
mentioning the proposal in the letter to the European Commission.: "In =
case=20
special anti-cloning protection is really demanded by the software =
industry, as=20
the DGIM claims in its invitation paper, Mark Paley's </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://members.aol.com/paleymark/ModelAct.htm"><FONT =
size=3D2>Model Software=20
Patent Act</FONT></A><FONT size=3D2></FONT><FONT face=3DArial> could =
provide a=20
useful source of inspiration." More: <A=20
href=3D"http://www.eurolinux.org/news/pr0101/dgltr">http://www.eurolinux.=
org/news/pr0101/dgltr</A></FONT></FONT></P><FONT=20
size=3D2>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>The&nbsp;Software Patent Act should be put forward =

vigorously. It would eliminate 90% of silly software patents. Europe =
should give=20
the proposal the second life. It is fully compatible with TRIPS. Any =
challenge=20
by the US government in the WTO would end with a failure.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT face=3DArial>J=F3zef =
Halbersztadt</FONT></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C0BDAF.80575F30--



