[Patents] My personal opinion.

[ramon@jl1.quim.ucm.es (Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez)]

I agree with Ronald. Although some really inventive patents have done 
significant harm (for example, the patent on the idea of public encryption),
these problems can be solved without excluding algorithms from patenting.

My disagreement with Ronald (and with software patents in general) is
that I believe that patents should be awarded when there is a
reasonable effort of research behind, so that the invention would not
be posible without the incentive of the monopoly. Ronald thinks that
as soon as there is a creative invention, there is a somehow "natural"
right to the monopoly. I think that patents (and intellectual property
in general) should be for the benefit of the society, not for the benefit
of the author/inventor.

At present, Ronald is making a living of the royalties of one
patent. Now Ronald can rest for a long time. If the patent expired
earlier, Ronald would have to continue inventing to make a living, and
the society would be benefitted with more inventions.

I think that the incentive of the monopoly should be balanced with the
research work behind. I think that it is not fair to award the same
protection to a medicine that has taken 4-5 years of research than to
Ronald's invention that has taken a "happy idea" and some weeks of
testing.

Ramon