From dmarti@zgp.org  Tue Jul 10 19:00:16 2001
From: dmarti@zgp.org (Don Marti)
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 11:00:16 -0700
Subject: [Patents] Patnews on Pierret
In-Reply-To: <200107101740.NAA26786@world.std.com>
Message-ID: <20010710110016.A29038@zgp.org>

begin Gregory Aharonian quotation of Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 01:40:19PM -0400:

> These economic issues are worthy of discussion, and are being discussed,
> but they apply to all areas of patentable technology, not just software.

I agree.  Patents, in the US, are an economic tool given to Congress
to promote economic good.  There are areas other than software in
which patents should not be issued.

It isn't meaningful to make decisions about what should and should
not be patentable _solely_ from mathematical or philosophical
principles -- any more than you could decide what should and should
not be taxable.  You have to draw the line politically.  

Since software-creating entities are in many cases much different
from, and certainly more diverse than, hardware-creating entities,
the rational decision to make will be to move the patentability
line to exclude software, to capture the value that is available
from allowing more diverse software business models to exist.

> And if you really concerned about the economics of IP, I would think that
> you would be more interested in addressing the economics of the excessive
> lifetimes of copyright

The issue isn't just whether or not you can copy and use existing
software.  It's whether or not you can even interoperate with
existing software.

You can write new software to interoperate with copyrighted
software (I just used a free "zip" utility to create a file archive
for someone who will open it with a proprietary "zip" utility,
for example.)  In many cases, you can't write new software to
interoperate with patented software.  (For example, if the recipient
had asked for a "compress" archive I wouldn't have been able to
do it.)

In any case, software copyrights are a non-issue.  Any proprietary
software you get is covered by a license in which you agree to give
up many rights you would have had under copyright.  You would have
to make many provisions of software licenses unenforceable in order
for getting rid of software copyright to have any effect.

-- 
Don Marti              "I've never sent or received a GIF in my life."
http://zgp.org/~dmarti    -- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies, p. 246.
dmarti@zgp.org    Free the Web, burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/


