Re: [Patents] pooling patents for progress and protection

[Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>]

Thank you very much for you comments, unfortunately I cannot agree even
simply on practical implications, aside the fact I do not agree with the
concept itself of software patents.

On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 20:46, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Easy solution - help patent offices give more time and prior art resources
> to their examiners so that the patent examiners can issue far fewer but a
> much higher quality software patent.

Easy and wrong!
No money can buy omniscience, and software would need that ...

> I have long argued that over 60% of
> thes issued software patents are invalid.  Most examiners are smart enough
> to argue so against patent applicants, if the examiners were given more time
> and money and resources to do their jobs.

They will approve even more patents to the detriment of the real
software development and the joy of patent attorney and legals ...
Patent offices gain money for each patent grant, where do you think
moneys will drive patent offices?

> With regards to the patent pool idea, in Europe it won't have any impact.
> Europe already has a powerful deterent to patent abuse - that losers pay
> in patent litigation.  This stops many bad patents, software and 
> non-software
> from being asserted in Europe. As a practical business matter (and I
> realize few of you here know much about running real businesses), you
> shouldn't worry about having software patents and business patents in
> Europe.  But if you hear that politicans plan to change the "loser pays"
> aspect of patent litigation, then worry very very much.

Well you suppose that litigations get into tribunals ... unfortunately
most programmers or little companies does not have the money even to
start a defense ... they lose before the tribunal, they get shot down.

> Heck, if you actually want to do something useful (I am doubtful), you
> ask each of the 100,000 people who signed the anti-software patent
> petition to donate one book on software to either the EPO or PTO.
> Having access to 100,000 such books would provide the examiners with
> ample amoutns of prior art to deny many software patent applications.

Well, let's try to calculate how much time an examiner will take to read
100.000 books. Let's say it is a very fast one and can read 2 books a
day (and remember all relevant and irrelevant ideas contained), it will
need only 50.000 days to read all the books or 136 years.

So ok, I'll support your idea when you will patent a technology to let
humans live more than 150 years or let them read at least 54 books a day
(so that reading 100.000 books will take only 5 years per examiner)


Ah, if anyone think that you can classify software by matters so to
spread the load on more humans, remember that algorithms are pure math
and applicable to any problem, so every single examiner need to know
_all_ the prior art.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce@xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part