[Patents] Re: Pro Software Patents = Illegal

[mattias.lundstrom@digitalroute.com (Mattias Lunström)]

Please try to keep the flame density down.

Ronald J Riley wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "PILCH Hartmut" <phm@a2e.de>
> To: "Ronald J Riley" <rjriley@rjriley.com>

> <<Even those software patents that are novel are crappy.>>
> 
> <<Even those few that are inventive (because represent significant advances
> in the art of mathematics), have proven to be very harmful to that art.>>
> 
> So you are now acknowledging that there are real software inventions which 
> you
> have seen being covered by patents.

??
Software patents exists. What is covered by these patents can be called
inventions more or less by definition. This is not the issue.

The issue is: Are these inventions worthy of patent protection?

Hartmuts argument is: No, since they do not work towards the common
good there is no reason for society to grant a monopoly to the inventor.

Your argument I have a harder time decrypting. Perhaps one of
1. Yes, they do work towards the common good (eg by rewarding innovation
   and causing disclosure) and should therefore be granted.
       If this is your opinion then the issue laregely becomes one of 
   economics which can at least in theory be objectively studied and
   the discussion can be naturally continued.

2. Yes. Even if they do not work towards the common good the inventor
   has a moral right to this monopoly power.
       If this is your opinion then the issue is more one of 
   ethics and philosophy and getting on in the discussion without
   ending in flame war is probably more difficult.

Could you clarify?

> 
> <<There is no good reason for honest patent professionals to tolerate the
> parasitic acitvity of some asocials who are invading the field of pure
> abstraction and degrading the software industry, sucking away its
> lifeblood by turning it into a field for their litigation business.>>
> 
> Such a telling disclosure.  You are admitting that you think that others
> inventions should be socialized for your and your colleagues benefit.

He is reiterating (in stronger terms): These patents are detrimental for 
innovation and society in general. They should therefore not be granted.

Perhaps to try to get some common starting ground you could give your
opinion to the questions: 
- Why should we have a patent system at all? 
- Where should we draw the line between patentable and non-patentable
  "inventions"?
- Which of the following should be patentable: drugs, software,
  music styles. Why (Ie what is a good decision rule)?

> The whole point of the patent system is to encourage disclosure of an 
> invention.
> Your comments have demonstrated that you  are looking at those inventions 
> which
> have been disclosed, and that you love the content so much that you wish to 
> use
> it.  But you simply are balking at having to pay the inventor.

When it comes to SW patents this is not a normal situation. 
The greater dangers are the following 2 scenarios:

A. "Silent patents"
--------------------
A1. You develop a software system. 
A2. After you have invested a lot in getting it to the market you get
hit with 
    an infringement claim on a patent you had never heard of.
A3. You pay the license fee or gets blown of the market by the legal
battle.

B. Interface patents
--------------------
Some big player develops a new file format and patents all decoding
methods
for this format. Interoperabilty with this file format becomes
impossible
for anyone else and ensures "lock-in" of all the customers.

> 4) Invent, if you can, an equally good alternative way of doing the same 
> job,
> and dedicate that invention to society, thereby demonstrating both your 
> skills
> and principles.
> 

Please note that with SW patents looking as they do today this is often
impossible
in practice. This is because patents cover whole classes of solutions
that can 
easily cover all reasonable solutions to a specific problem. Specific
solutions
are protected by copyright.

-- Mattias