[Patents] more from the dictionary of the inhuman

[phm@a2e.de (PILCH Hartmut)]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: PILCH Hartmut <phm@a2e.de>
Subject: Re: protection needs beyond copyright?
To: intprop-l@topica.com
Cc: Klaus Hundt <Klaus.Hundt@bibliothek.uni-magdeburg.de>

> > I would support my fellow countryman Jozef with all my
> > Polish hart in his quest against software copyrights (but not against
> >

> But copyrights and patents protect different aspects of the software
> and complement each other.

Indeed, patents "protect" an aspect that is excluded from appropriation
for very good reasons.  By doing that, they negate one important function
of copyright: the acquisition of intellectual property that one can
securely call one's own.  Thus copyright becomes worthless for the author
and instead he must make sure he gets a large number of patents so as to
be in a good negotiating position.  Normal people, such as freelance
programmers, are excluded from the possibility of acquiring intellectual
property.

I wouldn't call that "complementarity" but negation.

> Copyright on code is effective against lazy infringer whereas patent
> on the underlying process is effective against infringer who is not
> lazy and clever enough to recode the program in a different language
> or different platform.

Quite right.
Do you notice the cynicism in these words?

        "effective against a non-lazy and clever reimplementation"

There is one wrong part in there: if all this poor person did was to
"recode" in a different language, then he is below the laziness threshhold
of copyright.  Simple recoding infringes on copyright.  But reimplementing
as much imagination and skill as writing a new book on an old subject
matter (such as a new introduction to patent law).  Patents could indeed
be "effective against a non-lazily and cleverly written manual of patent
law".  But is that what you want?  Would you do that to the patent law
community?  If not, why do you propose doing unto others what you don't
want to be done to yourself?  Or are you saying that programming is a very
simple art of "coding"?  That would be even more offensive.  It shows a
deep disrespect of a profession which you evidently don't understand.  If
the profession of the programmer continues to encounter such disrespect
from the guardians of our legal system, we can only conclude that people
should think twice before learning to program.

Maybe words like "coder" should be listed in the "Dictionary of the
Inhuman" alongside with "software" and "information technology".  At least
they are frequent carriers of an ideology which inadequately propagates
machine functionality as the core value around which everything has to be
organised and thereby denigrates and negates the value of the real mental
work.

--
Hartmut Pilch                                           http://phm.ffii.org/
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation        http://swpat.ffii.org/
85000 signatures against software patents         http://www.noepatents.org/

==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiHs.a2jybo
Or send an email To: intprop-l-unsubscribe@topica.com
This email was sent to: phm@a2e.de

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================