From epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk  Fri May  4 12:08:03 2001
From: epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk (Edward Avis)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 12:08:03 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [Patents] Re: Bruce Perens: Software Patents vs Free Software
In-Reply-To: <20010504072202.F2BB1104E1@stabilite.aful.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.32.0105040946560.6614-100000@owl.doc.ic.ac.uk>

>From: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
>Subject: Re: [Patents] Burce Perens: Software Patents vs. Free Software

>Irrelevant.  Patent laws have never concerned themselves with relative
>returns on investment.
>
>Patents are meant to encourage (for whatever incentive) new and
>non-obvious technology.   PERIOD.

They're intended to achieve a reasonable balance between giving
incentives for new development, and keeping a reasonable amount of
freedom and flexibility in the marketplace.  You have to weigh up these
two factors and decide what level of patentability is appropriate.

That's why patents are limited to twenty years - it's considered a good
balance between incentives and freedom.  A two hundred year patent span
might do even more to 'encourage new and non-obvious technology', but
the price wouldn't be worth it.  It would be a poor 'patent bargain'.

Now, do you believe that in software it is a good tradeoff to grant
twenty year monopolies on particular algorithms or ideas?  Do the
benefits (extra incentives to develop) outweigh the costs (lack of
competition and burdensome legal costs)?

Finally, as many people have pointed out, software patents do not
usually encourage development of new technology.  By placing legal
obsctacles around software development, they *prevent* innovation more
than promote it.

Consider the ends of the patent system, not the means.

-- 
Ed Avis
epa98@doc.ic.ac.uk




