[Patents] Patnews on Pierret

[srctran@world.std.com (Gregory Aharonian)]

Bernard writes:
> what is more important, the only criterion for me is social usefulness
> ....
> social usefulness has to be defined by technical domain

While I can support such a criteria, I also see a problem with it.
With regards to supporting such a criteria, it is yet another reason
why software is as patentable as any other technology - software is a
technology that can have its social utility assessed.  Such a criteria
also is compatible with my long term goal of improving software patent
quality, since a software patent of low to no quality (i.e. software
that already has been published and is in the public domain) has zero
or provides zero additional usefulness to society.  And for all of the
bad software patents with no social usefulness, there are many patents,
if not as many patents, in other fields of technology, with little to
no social usefulness (there is a recently issued US patent for dipping
your baby's bottom in ink and stamping a blank piece of paper :-).

The problem I have with this is similar to the problem I have with
any sui generis system that requires non-market forces to assess the
economic value of the patent.  Who does the assessment?  Who determines
what is socially useful?  In the US, patents have a utility requirement
already, but it really doesn't take much to satisfy this requirement
(I will argue anything someone is will to spend thousands of dollars
trying to patent is at least useful to that person, and presumably
others).  But social utility?  Go read the economic literature -
economists are still trying to make the concept less subjective.

For example, what is the social utility of any patents dealing with  the
cancer causing, drug delivery cartel industry of cigarettes?  Should all
such patents be prohibited according to Bernard's criteria?

Such a criteria is an interesting proposal for research.  You should get
INRIA to apply for a grant from the EC to study it.  But such a criteria
is yet another property that software shares with other technologie,
making it one more reason why software should be, and is, as patentable
as any other technology.

The goal then is to fix the entire patent prosecution system, to improve
quality, to put patent busters like me out of work - and not to create
all sorts of special rules for each industry.

Greg Aharonian