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

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

Xavier Drudis Ferran wrote:

> > I don't consider it an anathema, personally. As said before,
> > the powers against this are a lot, while the pros are (politically)
> > weak. When someone has to decide, politicians will grant the
>
> Can we please separate the discussion  between what do you think
> would be good and what do you think is likely?.

Actually they are interdependant. My opinion is
that on internet and mailing lists in general things go too
much theoretical. Theory is good to understand the problems,
but actual practice must be considered too in order to make
right decisions.
To make things clearer, I can use a fairy tale.
A man in the street loose his wallet, with a good sum in it.
In an honest place, the next people that go through the
street will pick up the wallet, see the identity of the holder,
and put it in the his mailbox.
In a lesser honest place people will pick up the wallet,
take money from it, and put the wallet in holder mailbox.
In a bad place people will pick up the walet, take money,
and toss the wallet in the nearest trashcan.
In a very bad place in addition to the previous, will take
personal documents, and sell it to make fake identity.

Now, if the wallet proprietay is not aware of the world
he lives in, chanches are that he will think to live in a
good world, or in the opposite case. If people think to
live in a good world, inevitably will take less attention
to his wallet, so more likely will loose it.
Here I think the option #1 is valid.

To answer your question, my opinion is that patents
on SW (and SW *only*) are bad. I also see that
in the future with tech advance, HW will take some
role of SW, but I think that pantents on HW are
necessary anyway. I also think that chances to
avoid SW patenting are pretty slim, especially
with a bold approach.

> You overstimate the power of the patent lobby, although you are
> right in hinting  (if you meant that) that powerful players
> affected by the directive proposal should be mobilised against
> it. For example corporations that use but don't sell software.

Maybe I overestimate, maybe you underestimate.
It's really difficult to say. I was hinting anyway what you
say next.

> > want...for me personally I simply don't bother for one or the
> > other, because I perfectly know what megacorporations
> > wants from patenting, and threat to open source are pretty
> > marginal, on the market (*now*) exists a ton of SW that use
> > patents without licensing and no one complaints, nor will do.
>
> ...until the moment the suit pays off. Like when the free software
> project starts to take a significant portion of the market. The more
> serious the threat the more money they're spend on the prosecution.
> The less threatened they feel the cheaper their measures (like FUD
> cease-and--desist letters). Cheaper measures are a problem too,
> and we shouldn't ignorethem.

The law of economics are basically simple: make money. If
the cost of applying/sueing is less than the revenue, they'll do
it. One fact however, is determine the value/costs. It's not so
trivial as it seems. It's always a dynamic equilibrium: if you
are too narrow, people will look for alternatives, if you are too
broad you will earn little money (from patent holder view).
One practical case was GIF. Unisys has hoped to make big
money, but actually GIF is now on the dead line, with PNG
headed for prime time. Moral: granting a patent is not so
much a power. May be part of a delay tactics, but I think
rarely is a real blocking point.
Is for that reason that I've said before that actually whoever
will "win" will earn little.

> By the way, since Europe has no certainly enforceable
> software patents, going
> after free software projects with patents can at most
> get the project migrated to Europe. If or when software
> patents are enforceable everywhere in the world, you'll
> start to see more litigation. For now, their risks
> are too high.

One important thing to consider is that the EU market is
weaker to US, so the net value of patents is less and less
the chance it's worth the cause. Another point which make
me rather convicenced that in either case my life will change
little (even if slightly worst).

> > And when some rare case occur, you will see on underground
> > sites plenty of programs that do the dirty job for you.
>
> And during inquisition you could find sinners and heretic books
> underground, but that does not justify inquisition. It is
> irresponsible to let a law pass that illegalise your actions
> just because you think you won't be caught.

Correct,  but I simply haven't said that: only an evidence that
practical effect are little.

> > Market is a tough judge. Microsoft, with all his power, can't
> > do everything wants: .NET is (partly) open standard for a
> > reason.
>
> MS  can't do all they want, that's why their BSA pushes
>  Europe to give them patens so they can do what they want.

I can't understand here. The fact that .NET is partly public
has nothing to do with BSA. It's a political choice that MS
was forced to do by the market. BSA is a lobby that push
tougher protection on SW copy protection, basically (at
least in Italy).

> Market is no judge, and only resembles Justice in that it is
> blindfolded.

You have products A and B that compete each other for
the same market share. After one year you see how many
As and Bs were sold, and you see what the market has
chosen. This is commonly referred as market judgement".
It's not blindfolded, at least I don't think that you buy
software at your local store blindfolded.
Your statement (if I have understood it in the correct
light) is a nonsense.

> > The only problem is that the good is primarily in the hands
> > of the big fishes, and only a bit in our hands.
>
> What bit?.

A bit of money.

> > But hey, this is the world where we live in.
>
> No. This is not only the world we live in, it is the world we make with
> our actions. If you don't like it, then change it. Since you're not
> trying to change it, I guess you like it.

You can stop people starvation in Africa? And AIDS death toll?
Drugs? Fake business papers like Enron? Countless of other
things? You like them all? I don't believe that you have maked
something against Enron affair. Not because I think you are
stupid, but simply because we cannot do everything and personally
I am not qualified to make something in things like Enron.
But I *not* like Enron case.
Another nonsense statement.

Stefano