[Patents] Burce Perens: Software Patents vs. Free Software

[orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre)]

Mr Aharonian,
unfortunately I can't see your arguing to be consistent.
What are your reasons to stick to this arguing anyway?
I'm interrested in getting to know this.

On Thu, 3 May 2001, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >Now we may regard the price/unit where we still get your investment
> >back for selling services based upon .... [ developing hardware and
> >software]
>
> Irrelevant.  Patent laws have never concerned themselves with relative
> returns on investment.

After the article we just had read:
        http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html
You had very nicely written:
> > tools are used, etc.  So Perens argument is as much an argument
> > against most forms of patenting, once you subtract out the
> > worshipping of software implicit in his arguments.

Roland:
I then understood your point so that you were against all kinds
of patents, which you have also expressed in earlier postings
if I have understood you correctly, even though I don't really
agree with you on this point.

Greg:
> Patents are meant to encourage (for whatever incentive) new and
> non-obvious technology.   PERIOD.

Roland:
Yes, but in the case of software patents they have the
opposite effect, haven't you understood this yet?
If you haven't understood this, then I will try to make that
clearer in later postings to you.

Greg:
> Software is a technology.   PERIOD.   All software applications achieve
> a technical effect (if anyone in Europe bothered to define a
> scientifically rigorous definition of "technical effect".)

Roland:
I consider this speak about technical effect to be just
"bu....it"! sorry, but you have to fill in the dots yourself. PERIOD!

Greg:
> Thus software is as patentable as any other technology, including
> hardware.  The production costs are irrelevant, and have never been
> a factor in the statutory considerations for patenting.  Additionally,
> software is completely functional, and therefore (at least in the US)
> should not be, and should never have been, protectable by copyright.

Roland:
You are simply wrong. First "software" is not just any other
technology. In my response to you I made clear about several
essential details which differ between software and hardware,
and I didn't even mention the essential philosophical difference.
In case you use ONE of them as an argument, then you should argue
about the other ones as well.

Greg:
> Software is a functional technology.  Just like hardware.  That's the
> science.  If you want to eliminate software patents, you will have to
> eliminate hardware patents.  The production costs are irrelevant.
> Heck, in most cases, the R&D costs to develop the hardware or software
> product are just as irrelevant.

Roland:
OK, it seems clear that you are against patents over all, but I still
think patents are OK for physical processes. For software copyrights
are more suitable, which is also very clearly expressed in that
article. If you haven't understood why copyright is better for
software not even after having read that article, I will try to
make that clearer for you. I want you to understand this as
good as possible.

Greg:
> In any logical formalism for basic patent theory, it would be easy to
> prove logically that software is just as patentable as hardware.  You
> are welcome to keep on posting non-logical reasons to the contrary.

Roland:
I'm not an expert in patent theory, but I am an expert in logics,
so I'll come back on this point, as soon as I have studied more
patent theory. Remember also that the patent theory is not
the "thruth" that you can stick to. It's a theory setup to serve
the original idea of a patent as good as possible. You have to
understand that software did not exist when this theory was
written and don't try one more time saying that software is just
another technology, it's not! Software is a new phenomenon,
completely different from physics. Considering theories vs
truth, no one knows the truth. All we can do is to act according
the theories we know which constitues our model of the world
combined with critical thinking. In my business, which is
science, Mr Aharonian, critical thinking is the most essential
thing. One should also review one's own view upon things
every day, when we get more information.
One should ask questions like:
Why am I doing this?
What is the best thing to do, if I want to serve the public?
How does this new information I got change what I already know?

OK, if you have studied odontological philosphical theories,
then you may claim that software and physics are just different
odontological abstractions, but then you have to remember that we
don't have the programming languge for the physical world. If we had,
we would, as you certainly understand, not need any patents at all,
because every individual would be self sufficient, but now we are
stuck to this reality and are limited by the physics. To handle a non
ideal world with it's limitations, building skills, that's what
patents are there to protect.

Patents have been working well for physical processes, but they don't
work well for software, which has a completely different structure,
being based upon abstract, non physical, ideal processes.

Therefore, can you give a motive why you want to abolish all patents
already now?

Your view seems to be that software first should be excluded as being
special, then we should discuss removing the patent system completely.
For me such a process seems unneccessary harmful. It is like stopping
a saucepan to boil by welding a lid on. As you understand the content
will explode after a while and cause more harm and chaos than if
you had simply identified the problem and turned the heat down.

Patents on software is harmful and is an obstacle for technical
development and slows down the technical development over all.

I don't know what you are working with, I first assumed that you
were a patent attorney as you discussed patent theory above.
In that case your obsessive defense of software patents is not
professional, because if you were professional, then you would act
for what is decided by political decisions to be the best for the
public good.  Even though you can always have your own personal
view of course, but whatever your own opinion is you have to
act according to the law, that's your duty as an employer in a
public service.

Patents should serve both the society and the companies which
are protected by the patents. Concerning software patents they
do harm and cause unnecessary costs for both these partners.

The only people that can really benefit on software patents
are patent lawyers, are you a patent lawyer Mr Aharonian?

If you are, you are then not acting for the public good and
being objective. You would then be acting in your own interest,
because as long as there are software patents you will get
a way to pay your bill.

If you are a lawyer you have to understand that being a lawyer
is a public service, something that the society needs for
clearing out legal problems, a lawyer is needed to make
laws efficient.

A lawyer who greedily hunts for a system which will cause
him as much work as possible in his or her interest, despite
what harm it may cause for the rest of us, is not a good lawyer
and is thus not professional.

        Best regards
        Roland Orre