[Patents] Gene patents compared to software patents....

[fredrik.ohrstrom@b2xpress.com (Fredrik Ohrstrom)]

There was much stirring about patents on genes in the human DNA a couple of 
years
ago.  First the EU decided not to allow patents on genes after a large round
of jousting between different interest groups and large corporations. Later
the decision was overturned by some clever scheming. Now it apparently is
allowed to patent genes.

Whatever the reason for granting patents on genes was, they do not actually 
affect
me directly. Even though the reserve the right to use information about my 
body
to a specific corporation, it is not as big threat to me as the different 
groups
claimed. Why? Because I could never have made use of the information
even if I was aware of it. Nobody (today) has a DNA/RNA replication/injection
chamber in
the basement, certainly not me.

The same thing is true with all patents relating to inventions with technical
effect.
They invariably cost mony to make use of. If somebody have patented a way of
designing
a desk I can still make one of those for myself since it is allowed to make 
use of
the
invention for non-professional use (swedish law). If I want to start 
producing the
desks, the
cost for the patent is just one of many costs that needs to be negotiated. 
Material
cost, labour
cost, production equipment, housing and so on.  Noone, just produces 432 
desks for
fun and
gives them away, this just never happens.

A patent is (as you all know) a state granted monopoly to prevent others from 
using

the patended idea for professional use.  This monopoly is granted for a 
limited
time
because it is believed to improve society, since it gives protection to 
inventors
so they
can earn money more easily on their inventions, which means they can invent 
more,
which is better for society.

When I write I program for fun, I >>can<< give it away to 432 people with no 
effort
at all.
Even though I do not write the program as a professional, it can be delivered 
to
many more
than a normal physical invention. There is also a conflict since a
non-professionally produced
program can be used professionally. Also a lot of free programs are picked up 
by
aggregators
who sells the service of putting all free programs on the same CD and making 
them
work
together.  This means that even if I want to improve a free word processer,
like StarOffice or AbiWord, with the feature to show misspellt words in a 
different
color,
I cannot do this since that idea is patented. Is this a gain to society or a 
loss?

The result is that software patents are affecting my hobby and therefor my 
private
life.  No other
patent have done that before.  Most people know the problems with software 
patents:

overly broad, difficult to categorize, too many and that reinvention is
VERY common.
All this makes it essentially impossible for me to know if I have violated any
patents after a nice
afternoon programming my pet projects. This scares me!

Fredrik Ohrstrom