[Patents] novelty and the anti-copycat affect

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

> > > Yes indeed, I know of alot of companies that are afriad to bring demos 
> > > to
> > > exhibitions due to the reasons you state.
> >
> > which could be a reason to give them some extra legal weapons against
> > copycats, but not a reason to give them patents.  Patents can protect only
> > a small percentage of what people are afraid of showing at an exhibition,
> > and whether the exhibited feature is an invention or not is irrelevant to
> > the issue.
>
> Also, this is probably short term protection (limited time). I agree that
> this is probably the optimal solution between the need for protection and
> the need for freedom.

This would have to be a short term protection against copying features and
concepts.  I.e. a short-term extension of copyright.  The difficulty is of
course in proving that a concept or a feature was really a result of
copycat behaviour.  You would have to ban anything that is somewhat
copycat-suspicious, including quite a lot of innocent independent
development.  Which is why such a mechanism would have to be very limited
in time and effect, if it can be successfully constructed at all.

However difficult, we may be forced to give it a try.  Only by trying to
construct something serious can one show that software patents pretend to
address some moral needs that cannot be easily addressed by law.  The
attempt to do this with patents is immoral in a double sense

(1) it pretends to solve problems which it doesn't solve (most of the
    features people want to hide from copycats aren't truly novel, let
    alone inventive)
(2) it comes as an army of external forces that allows a quick and swift
    subversion of the current copyright order, which actually would be the
    basis for any peaceful and balanced internal development toward more
    adequate anti-copycat protection.   Those that ally themselves with
    this external army are a kind of software-industry traitors.

-phm