[Patents] Black and white

[kodama@netcourrier.com (kodama@netcourrier.com)]

>> For instance, the threads about =22Free software vs software > patents=22=
=2E
>What thread was that?
>I don't remember such a thread.
>Why don't you quote?

I can not accept this :  80 % of the message of April do have this title =21=
=21

Is there a real need to quote this ???


>Against which position are you arguing?

This was written 2 lines above.

There is no use wasting time with this kind of arguing.  At least, there i=
s no interest to me.


>IBM is not the main motor of free software development and their
>opensource stragegy may change any time.

It is you who are talking about IBM. =

I wasn't =21

I can not provide any evidence, but I can suppose that every major patent =
owner do.



>... built by you and nobody else.

Do you really think that ?? :-)
Honestly ??


>> how to measure their know-how and what they bring ? In addition, a
>> start-up making R&D without patenting may easily be copied by other
>> bigger companies (or other start-ups : start up does not mean white
>> goose =21). The only mean to prevent this is patenting =21

>Software may not be copied, due to copyright.

No-no, copyright is of no use to prevent a company using the ideas, concep=
ts, archis of another.
There are no real application of copyright in B to B relationships, in sof=
tware field.


>Usually big companies have other things to do than to look for some
>promising software written by a small company.

Not at all. =

They, on the contrary, spend a lot of time doing technical =


Do you sometimes read some newspapers ?? Do you know about the start ups b=
eing bought by big players ??

Don't you think that these big players have spent some time studying them =
??



>patent law firm or a student of a law school with no experience of
>real-world software business.  That maybe an excuse ...

Another classic dichotomy (you can not tell, this time, that there is a st=
rawman):  software engineers vs lawyers.

FYI, I am a software/telecommunication engineer.  =


And, perhaps it depends on the countries, but in Europe, all patent attorn=
eys are...... Engineers :-)

So, again, why putting an dichotomy where there is none ???



>> Web : www.netcourrier.com - Minitel : 3615 NETCOURRIER
>> T=E9l=E9phone : 08 36 69 00 21
>... but I fear that this is not true.  =


What do you say ?? I am afraid I am not understanding you.


> We are dealing with M. Breese =

> or some of his old-age, brain-dead >
> patent movement ideologues, who =


(may I mention another typical dichotomy based on age ? :->> )

If you can not believe the person you are talking to, why are you replying=
 ?

Why assuming that the other party is lying, hiding himself etc =21=21
Please stop consider the other party as a foe, a Devil =21

So, fyi, I am not M. Breese and I do not know him (except that I read some=
 of his mails, here)



>The =22opensource movement=22 as a young group of unexperienced idealists=
 > with >some kind of manichean anarcho-syndicalist background ... that =


But WHY ARE YOU TELLING THIS ???

Just a few lines above, we were talking about big players funding =22open =
source=22 software =21=21  =

So, how can you believe I can think like this ??
Why ????   Because, you imagine myself according to the image of the Foe y=
ou have in mind, without even reading what I tell.

That was exactly what you I was saying in the begining. You were asking fo=
r quotation : this mail is full of your quotations :-)

Perhaps this is due to e-mails (we are hidden behing a screen, and we are =
used to reply without thinking, like in a chat), but everybody defending t=
he non patentability of software do have this epidemeric sort of reactions=
. There are no logic in what you are saying, just passions.  You can even =
put contradiction between the beginning and the end of your own mail....

S. C.



>
>
>

----- La messagerie itin=E9rante sans abonnement NetCourrier -----
Web: www.netcourrier.com - Minitel : 3615 NETCOURRIER
T=E9l=E9phone: 08 36 69 00 21