[Patents] Re: security issues and technical effects

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr> (Bernard Lang)]

On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 06:52:39PM +0100, Nick Fleming wrote:
> >
> >     By: John Lettice
> >     http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/17960.html
> >     Posted: 29/03/2001 at 09:04 GMT
> >
> >  ..........................................
> >
> >
> > > Pierret, who made the comments in an interview with magazine 01
> > > Informatique, seems to have made a convincing bid for Open Source
> > > pin-up status whle he was about it. "I support Linux and free software,"
> > > he said, "because they allow faster and more robust development to put
> > > public administration systems online. Commercial software raises
> security
> > > issues, because one doesn't know what's inside it. This is why I am
> > > against software patents in Europe."
> > >
> > >                                       ====
> > >
> > > Actually his objection helps support software patents.  If his concern
> is
> > > security issues, and since security issues are a technical effect, his
> > > economic (thus making the patents useful) objection, which resonates
> with
> > > nothing in patent law, becomes yet another argument for the
> patentability
> > > of software in Europe.
> 
> I see the argument (Greg ?) is trying to make - patents mean that the full
> invention
> must be disclosed and therefore patents are good in this case as they force
> a
> company to reveal security details.

no ... if the patented technique is critical to the application, you
are force to use proprietary software, which may be insecure ...  all
you know is one functional detail of the software, which may be
irrelevant.

> (Im not sure why security issues are technical effects - no offence but
> that doesnt make any kind of sense to me !. Sorry)
> 
> What neither Pilch or Greg mention is that patents do not provide provisions
> for trade secret disclosure and the illegality of reverse engineering here
> in Europe.
> Remember that a company does not have to disclose ALL its secrets - only
> those required for a patent to be valid - so a patent would not necessarily
> cover security details.

Yes 

> But the real issue (i think) is allowing a private company to have a
> (potentially
> Europe-wide) 20 year monopoly on a public service without any hope
> of competiton  - surely that is an argument against patents in this case ??
> 
> Regards
> 
> Nick Fleming.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Patents maillist  -  Patents@liberte.aful.org
> http://liberte.aful.org/mailman/listinfo/patents

-- 
         Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
           SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
                 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX