Re: [Patents] US patent reform strategy inaugurated by myths & lies

[Stefano Costa <stefano.costa@icn.siemens.it>]

xdrudis@tinet.org wrote:

> I don't understand. As I see it, it is more important for a company
> to keep business at home than abroad.

They are both important IMHO.

> If we allow software patents.
> European companies will be likely to be hit both in the USA and
> Europe (Siemens may be an exception because they have lots of
> software patents, but almost the only one).

I don't have the situation of company/patents in EU at hand, sure
Siemens is a big player but not the only one. Comes to mind
SAP, several UK SW companies which are historically
among the firsts, and even USA firms with big interest
in EU. The last category is important, keeping in mind
that some companies are pretty big and almost european,
that is, with few links to the company HQs. And with many
european employees and big economic impact ;).

> European companies already can patent in the USA if they
> want, so what's the problem?. The fact that USA companies act inside
> Europe is one more reason not to let them patent software in Europe,
> so that European companies and startups can compete on technical and
> free market grounds at home, and when they want to sell in the USA,
> then they can file for patents in the USPTO.

Say that USA company U has a patent, valid in USA but not europe.
Also european company E has a patent, valid in USA but not europe.
Average company size in USA is pretty big (I am referring to SW),
while average of EU is less. Software is getting more and more
complex, in other words more expensive to produce.
EU companies have less money, both for the absence/scarce
roles of Venture Capital in EU, and for the limited/fragmented
size of market in EU.
USA companies have more VCs, more money, a large and
unfragmented market.
Historically USA was the first to start in the computer arena,
and in every business starting as the first is always a bonus.
I am saying all of this because your premise is a bit misleading:

"European companies and startups can compete on technical and
free market grounds at home"

The word "compete" and its meaning is the key. It's not (only)
on technical grounds, but also on business/marketing/timeframe/
cultural side.
On a purely techinical ground you are perfectly right.
On the other grounds, sadly, EU is pretty badly positioned.
For USA in EU the biggest problem is the cultural barrier,
since customer needs in EU are different from those in USA.
In USA for european companies is a nightmare, because
inventing new business, where games are equal for everyone
and you have the starting bonus is very hard and rare,
while on stable markets you have to fight with big fishes.
"Compete" implies in your statement equal premises for
all competitors, but as I've noted above, this is simply not
true. It's hard to compete with Golias, and there are few
David's.
Patents may aid a little bit the things for EU companies
in EU grounds, even I admit that it's not so much. But
in this times even little aids are welcomed, let me say.

> Sorry, I don't understand?. Who is correct?. USA?. What do you
> think a "light approach on SW patents" is?.

The "hard" patent lobby wants to use the very same set of rules
for physical patents applied to SW.
The "soft" side recognizes the pecularities of SW, introducing
modificators on patent schemes for SW objects.
I have a pragmatic approach, similar to those of
Linus Torvalds:

"I don't much like patents, but we're forced to live with them.
I suspect the best thing we can do is to use them as well as we can."

Stefano