[Patents] No point in everybody agreeing in a discussion

[ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es (Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez)]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2001 at 10:50:54PM +0200, Luuk van Dijk wrote:
> Dear mr. Sobolewski,
> 
> as someone actively lobbying against swpats in the Netherlands, I wish to
> distantiate myself from your statements on this list.  
> 
[...]
> Secondly, I am sure I speak on behalf of many readers of this list
> when I say I find Greg's contributions extremely valuable.  He often
> gives me a good run for my arguments, and he has certainly provided
> well-informed input to this whole discussion.

Although Greg might be well intentioned he is wrong and he insists in
his mistake. Greg strongly believes that the problem of trivial
patents is in the examination process. In this mailing list evidence
demonstrating that the problem is in the interpretation of the law
(that is, what is "obvious") been shown: a statement of the deputy
director of the UK Patent Office, a statement of the head of the US
Patent Office, case law of the Court of Appeals of the Federal
Circuit, ... (Luuk, I think you and me already agree in this point;
by the way let me congratulate you for your excellent work in explaining
the problem to Dutch MPs)

Greg is right that examining prior art is difficult, but that is not
the problem; it is a symptom of the real problem. The real problem is
that patents are accepted for so easy ideas, that it is quite likely
that someone came before with the same idea. This demonstrates that
the incentive of patents is not necessary for the ideas being
patented.

Another mistake of Greg is saying that "because the problems of
software patents exist in other areas, there is no reason to ban
software patents, there is nothing special about software". This
comments is against basic strategic sense. If the patent system is not
working well it should not be extended. It should be restricted to
those areas (such as pharmaceuticals) where it is really necessary.

I don't know why Greg insists in his mistakes. I thought that he is
more interested in his business of searching prior art than in
improving the system. Now I think that he may be honest. However he
adopts a defensive behaviour, which in part is the consequence of his
psycology, and the enviroment created by more radical anti-patent
comments. I think that all of us should do an effort to create a
positive environment that encourages open discussion; in this point
I agree absolutely with Luuk.

On the other hand, the reason why the US has not been able to fix
their patent system can be simply that it is not in their
interest. Although trivial patents generate monopolies, they are US
monopolies that protect them against the importing of European or
Japanese goods.

Ramon