Re: [Patents] EU Commission: Competitive and efficient European enterprises

[Carsten Svaneborg <svanebor@mpip-mainz.mpg.de>]

On Wednesday 09 April 2003 16:36, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> Many other fields of technology (electronics, communications,
> biotech, pharma, etc.) have learned to tapdance in these patent
> minefields. It is something mature industries learned to deal with.

What is your definition of "mature"?

I agree with your statement, IF your definition of mature is
having a sufficiently large portfolio of patents, such that
a company can extensively cross-license it's own portfolio
against other companies, and thus to a large extent mitigate
the legal risks created by cumulative innovation in a patent
minefield.

However, maturing by creating patentportfolios create
"patent thickets" that make it difficult for new companies
without portfolios to market products, because they need
to license many patents in order to reach the market, e.g.
established "mature" players extract a "innovation tax"
from new comers. Hence maturing also means less new
entrants to the market, which is bad from the POV of 
society.


Read the following paper for some economic analysis of
the "growing up" of the US semiconductor industry.

The Effects of Strengthening Patent Rights on Firms
Engaged in Cumulative Innovation: Insights from the
Semiconductor Industry, R. M. Ham Ziedonis, G. Libecap.
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/users/bhhall/hz_libecap.pdf

Read the following for understanding the concept of
Patent Thickets, and the effects of cross-licensing.

Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licences, Patent Pools,
and Standard-Setting, C. Shapiro, 2001
http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/thicket.pdf


Naturally, using this definition is a self-fulfilling prophesy
because those companies that didn't learn to deal with
patents, e.g. obtained portfolios, are those that got
blown up. 


> There is nothing special or holy about software engineering.

I could make economic arguments to dispute that point, 
e.g. costs of setting up a software production facility,
however, the real argument is ideological.

Software is increasingly important as an interface between individuals
and society. Just think of browsers, email, usenet news, submitting
paperwork electronically, electronic voting, convergence of
media, creation, dissemination, and distribution of information etc.

Granted this would not work without a physical layer of
communication and electronics, and I have no problem
with patents on technical inventions in these fields, because
they do not affect the information layer. However, it is essential
that the software communication layer remains free of any form
for control.

Just an example, somebody could actually patent a method
of doing votes via the internet. At the EPO this could be done
by claiming that verification, storage, etc. of votes requires
additional security and issues with counting, which supplies the
"further technical effect" necessary to render voting a patentable
invention by the EPO.

Voting is the basis for a democracy, and from an ideological
POV I find it completely unacceptable that computer-implemented
democracy can be monopolised by some foreign company.

Just an example Microsofts "System and method for interactive
live online voting with tallies for updating voting results"
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='6175833'.WKU.&OS=PN/6175833&RS=PN/6175833


> And if you bothered to do any research

Such as http://www.softwarepatenter.dk/economics_articles.html ;?
which BTW. is only a fraction of the papers I have on this topic.

Btw. when did you last check the links of your list of
economics papers on www.bustpatents.com many of them
seems to have decayed ?


> you would find the minefields in these other areas of
> technology much worse than for software, in terms of
> real legal problems companies big and small are experiencing.

Might be. But frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about them.

Pharmaceuticals are nice when your ill, and although patents on
AIDS drugs are problematic, I think this will be dealt with, but
keeping the software communication layer free is a much more
important project.


> But in fantasy land, imagine what you want.
I try, but that does not make it real.

-- 
  Mvh. Carsten Svaneborg