Re: [Patents] Stallman on patents in ZD Net UK

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

> Yep. Definately one of the better articles - worth a read over
> easter while you're stuck in traffic jams :-)

Only if you are easily amused.  He makes all sorts of dire predictions
about the impact of software patents, but without providing any
statistical or economic data (not that anyone else does).

So his paper would be more accurate if he started every sentence with
"It maybe that ....", assuming accuracy is of any relevance here.

He also grossly minimizes the negative impact of patents on other fields
of technology.  In fact, if you make lists of patent infringement
lawsuit damages paid, there are few if any software cases, for amounts
way down in the list.  I doubt highly anyone in the biotech world would
agree with any of Stallman's assertions about the negative impact of
biotech patents.

Though I suppose it is appropriate to read his paper on the day of a
holiday for a philosophy (Christianity) that also for the most parts
doesn't make much use of statistics and economics (though at least
Stallman makes use of science).

He complains about the language of software patents, but all fields of
technology have that problem.  He complains about the victims of
software patents, but all fields of technology have that problem
(and statistically, there are probably far fewer victims of software
patents compared to these other areas of technology).  He complains
about the licensing of software patents, but all areas of technology 
have that problem (if he wasn't so intellectually lazy, he would
research the massive licensing headaches of biotech MTAs).  He
complains about the prior art and obviousness problems of software
patents, but all areas of technology have this problem.

In fact, if anything he is boring, because advocates of patents have
been more critical much earlier than Stallman is (though sadly, few
of these people provide much statistical or economic data).

Greg Aharonian