[Patents] help - please unsubscribe

[Tim.McCleary@ps.net (McCleary, Tim)]

help please unsubscribe my address from this service.

Thanks,

Tim McCleary

-----Original Message-----
From: patents-request@liberte.aful.org
[mailto:patents-request@liberte.aful.org]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:01 AM
To: patents@liberte.aful.org
Subject: Patents digest, Vol 1 #444 - 7 msgs


Send Patents mailing list submissions to
        patents@liberte.aful.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        patents-request@liberte.aful.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        patents-admin@liberte.aful.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Patents digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: No point in everybody agreeing in a discussion (Ram'on Garc'ia
Fern'andez)
   2. Re: French State secretary for Industry against SoftPat (Ram'on
Garc'ia Fern'andez)
   3. Re: No point in everybody agreeing in a discussion (Gregory Aharonian)
   4. Re: Re : [Patents] French State secretary for Industry against SoftPat
(Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez)
   5. Re: WHAT WE LOST DUE TO GREG (PILCH Hartmut)
   6. Re: novelty and the anti-copycat affect
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Wahl=E9n?=)
   7. Re: novelty and the anti-copycat affect (PILCH Hartmut)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:01:28 +0200
From: Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez <ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es>
To: Luuk.van.Dijk@xs4all.nl, patents@liberte.aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] No point in everybody agreeing in a discussion

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


--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 09:04:23 +0200
From: Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez <ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es>
To: Pierre Breese <pb@breese.fr>, patents@liberte.aful.org
Subject: Re: [Patents] French State secretary for Industry against SoftPat

On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 06:20:06PM +0200, Pierre Breese wrote:
> Simply the usual criteria of patentability : novelty and inventiveness of
> the claimed technical characteristics, sufficiency of the description of
the
> invention.

So are you in favour of the patentability of easy ideas that have no
significant effort behind?

Ramon


--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 03:48:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
To: patents@liberte.aful.org, Luuk.van.Dijk@xs4all.nl,
        "Ram'on Garc'ia     Fern'andez" <ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es>
Subject: Re: [Patents] No point in everybody agreeing in a discussion

>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.

ANd I will repeat, this is yet another problem that software patents
share with other areas of technology.  It is a complaint made about
all of the gene sequence patents (isn't esy to use computers to
automatically sequence the genome?).  Then take a look at lots of
the mechanical inventions, especially those submitted by independent
inventors.  Most are easy improvements to existing mechanical devices.

So even if you could come up with an objective definition of "easy"
(right after you come up with an objective definition of "technical
effect"), it is a definition "easily" applicable to all areas of
technology, not just software.

Once again there is nothing special about software - stop worshipping
it.  Let's fix the examination process for all areas of technology
(and for the idiots on the list - fixing the examination process would
cut down on the bad patents issuing which would cut down on my
business, and yet I still argue that is what we should do.  Hartmut
can have fun trying to find a reason why arguing something that cuts
down on my business actually is a hidden effort to increse my business).

Greg Aharonian


--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:58:45 +0200
From: Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez <ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es>
To: Pierre Breese <pb@breese.fr>, patents@liberte.aful.org
Subject: Re: Re : [Patents] French State secretary for Industry against
SoftPat

On Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 09:43:00AM +0200, Pierre Breese wrote:
> > So are you in favour of the patentability of easy ideas that have no
> > significant effort behind?
> >
> No, only for inventions (and not ideas) respecting criterias of
patentability.

I use the word idea with the meaning of "I have an idea: let us do
...", not in the sense of abstract ideas. I insist in my point: are
you in favour of the patentability of easy methods/inventions/ideas/...?

The legal criterion of "non-obvious"/"inventive step" means that as soon
as there is something creative one has the right to patent. This produces
an unbalanced situation between the (unexistent) research effort and the
monopoly granted for most software patents.

Ramon


--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:03:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
To: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Sobolewski <critto@poczta.wp.pl>,
        <patents@liberte.aful.org>
Subject: Re: [Patents] WHAT WE LOST DUE TO GREG

> Hartmut reiterates endlessly a question I have answered repeatedly:
> > Should everything under the sun that is novel and "non-obvious"
> > be patentable?
>
> Who knows?

So you still don't answer the question.

> But when it comes to software, the answer is yes,

I thought you said software was undistinguishable from hardware.
So, apart from not answering the question, you are contradicting yourself.

> under the
> current laws of both the United States and Europe.  Whatever complaints
> you have about software patents (I find the slavery complaint totally
> hilarious and totally insulting [to those who were slaves]), those
> complaints apply to all other areas of technology where there are
> patents.

I didn't make the slavery complaint.
However, any kind of domination, also that exerted through patents, must
be justified.

[... reiterations deleted ... ]

> Do software patents cause problems, cause people to change their
> business activities, restrict how people use the newly patented
> software?  Yes.  But is that any reason to eliminate software
> patents?  No, because the same problems occur in other areas of
> technology.  There is nothing special, nothing holy, nothing in
> software worth worshipping.

This domination must be justified for every field, and the balance tilts
very badly in disfavor of the patent system in the case of software.  I
am not saying that it is very good elsewhere.

> And if not, I will bet any amount of money that in a TRIPS challenge
> made by the US against any European laws discriminating against
> software patents, that the US position would prevail - for one
> simple reason - there doesn't not exist any language that one can
> clearly and unambiguously discriminate software as a technology from
> any other technology.

A TRIPS challenge has no chance if Europe wants to win. Europe is free to
define the terms "invention", "technology" and "industrial application"
according to its tradition.  And a very clear definition can be found at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/stidi/eurili/

> This then reduces this argument to one issue - should non-physical
> ideas (novel,nonobvious) such as software be patentable, should a
> patent system that originated in a mechanical world accomodate
> non-mechanical technologies as they arise (and eventually dominate)?

Should a system whose economic benefit to the realm of physical inventions
is already very questionable be further extended to the realm of logical
innovations, or should we rather cut the system back so as to make sure it
rewards only those inventions which contribute to our knowledge about
natural forces?

> At least for software, I say yes.  I prefer Turing over Pilch.

And for what do you say NO?

I didn't ask "at least for what?" but "for what?"  Where do you draw the
borderline between the patentable and the non-patentable?

What about

        twelve tone music
        cubism
        ecological taxation
        ecological logistics

All these are turing-complete and susceptible to be part of automated
systems in which all human interference is incidental or optional.  In
case you meant that turing-completeness is your standard.

I think I deserve a penny on each liter of gasoline sold in Germany,
because I thought up the concept of eco tax in 1981, when it was not yet
in the public debate.  I feel unjustly discriminated, like a piece of
non-patentable software.


-phm




--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:01:42 +0200 (MEST)
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Wahl=E9n?= <mva@df.lth.se>
To: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
Cc: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>,
        Pierre Breese <pb@breese.fr>, <patents@aful.org>
Subject: Re: [Patents] novelty and the anti-copycat affect


> > 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.

Regards, Martin



--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 10:31:10 +0200 (CEST)
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
To: <mva@df.lth.se>
Cc: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>,
        Pierre Breese <pb@breese.fr>, <patents@aful.org>
Subject: Re: [Patents] novelty and the anti-copycat affect

> > > 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






--__--__--

_______________________________________________
Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents


End of Patents Digest