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

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

PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> Your answer to the question "what would be good?" is unclear and
> unreasoned.

I am trying to explain my methods, as questionable as they can be,
as anything else BTW.

> Your answer to the question "what is likely?" is even more groundless.
>
> In general, I think the discussion about the appropriate political tactics
> should be left to the tacticians of whatever group is engaging in a
> political game.

This is an answer as much good as my one.
Someone should go tacticts anyway. If  it's here the the right
place or not, this may be questionable, but nevertheless someone
should do.

> When we are not confident that we are working for the same goal, there is
> no point in discussing tactics.

Well, since your goal is "no patents period", and mine is "patent maybe",
yeah, we don't have the same goal. But that's why the discussion has
started. I think this is the qualifying point, so this is the actual matter.

> > Correct,  but I simply haven't said that: only an evidence that
> > practical effect are little.
>
> You said above that patents won't have that much of an effect because
> companies only litigate when the cost/effect ratio is good and it often
> won't be good in Europe.  You said this as part of an effort to discourage
> our campaigning.

The first sentence is ok. The second is not right, better, your assumption
is not right. I suppose since I'm working in siemens that I'm a "covered"
pro-pat on someone payroll. Well, in my office no one has asked to patent
something and I haven't done so. And if I'll go somewhere else I
mantain my position, at least until I don't work out something more or
equally valid.
I don't want to "discourage". It's not the point. I wish to underline
that (many times) tactics pays, and who the have reason not always
win, quite the contrary BTW. Anti pat has its merits: but I also see
some application problems.
Anyway it does not seem that you discourage easily :)

> Software doesn't just win on its merits in an environment where
> proprietary structures make sure that there is no level playing field.

Why discriminate SW from the rest? You are telling me that in other
areas things are better/different??? SW is identical to *many* other
markets in the world. Like music/recording, food, and so on.

> Also for other reasons, the above "market economy" theory is mainly for
> the schoolbook.  Not quite pointless, but far from real experience.

Still if product A sell more then B, market has judged something.
Market are me, you, all. Maybe market decides something I don't
like, I agree. But sure is no scholbook theory.
If [my|your] product does not sell, [I|you] are in trouble.
This is no theory, is sound practice.
But you sell something? Maybe you work on something that is
not sold by you, so I understand your position.

> We are doing nothing about AIDS on this mailing list.  But we are also not
> propagating some theory that all anti AIDS efforts are pointless.

I haven't said are pointless: again and again I say that I think it's
better a different approach. Not the same. Also said that "doing nothing"
does not means "I like it". This is why I've said "off-topic" things like
AIDS and the like. It's an example, bold enough so anyone can
understand.
You have tendency to malignous interpretation.

> I still must conclude that you like software patents.

It's starnge that I say things but apparently people does not
read them. quoting myself:

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.

So abstracting: "I don't like SW patents (or on process
as you like) but do I like the other "traditional" ones.

> Recognise the tree by its fruits, as the Bible says.

It's the way that divides us: religion vs pragmatical.

Stefano