[Patents] American Inventor Coalition / was Re: Software and

[jtobey@john-edwin-tobey.org (John Tobey)]

I don't recall anti-swpat papers having addressed this point.  Is
anyone else besides me concerned about it?

On Mon, May 07, 2001 at 01:24:18PM +0200, kodama@netcourrier.com wrote:
> 
> The fact that software engineer have problems to detect if they are
> infringing a 3d party patent is a problem, but with little
> relevance. I think 90% of them prefer to take this risk and to face
> this 3d party when wanting to enforce its right, with its own
> portfolio (hopefully stronger).

As a description of programmers' behavior in reaction to the legal
climate, this is accurate.  Probably closer to 100% take the risk,
since reading about patents is a highly unproductive use of
development time.

However, the attitude that you encourage is completely at odds with
what makes a good programmer.

If I understand, you (and others before you) suggest that engineers
should simply accept the risk that what they produce is vulnerable to
legal threats and action, in the same way that any undertaking is
vulnerable to natural disasters and other forms of bad luck.

This kind of thinking may be all right for lawyers, who are accustomed
to vagueness.  Risks of ambivalence and misinterpretation are inherent
in legal systems, but not in computer systems!  Good engineers strive
to make their software "bullet-proof" by organizing it into many
simple pieces, each of which a human can completely understand, and
which operate together in precisely defined ways.

Among the many arguments for and against software patentability, we
should count the damage that it does to the hope of writing clean
systems.  If I forget about patents (as I do when programming), I can
design, implement, test, debug, and deploy systems and know that I
have done valuable work.  If I have made mistakes, at least I can
isolate them to the systems themselves.

However, the reality of software patents imposes a risk that even
bug-free software may harm its developers unpredictably, by inviting
costly lawsuits, reparations, licensing, or the need to redesign or
abandon projects at the whim of present and future patent holders.  To
live under such threats is like giving up control of your life's
accomplishments and everything you own to a regime that may take it
all away at any moment with no just cause.

We accept nature's whims because we know not how to avoid them.  But
we do know how to avoid the harmful effects of software patents:
Abolish them through legislation.

By the way, if you wonder why I, a US resident, am so interested in
European patent policy, it is because I sometimes think about moving
to Europe, and the prospect of a free conscience will influence my
decision significantly.

-- 
John Tobey, late nite hacker <jtobey@john-edwin-tobey.org>
 ``I just dont want to worry about my word processor dropping its core.
   It simply isnt my job to whip out GDB and debug my word processor.''
 -Emily K. Dresner-Thornber