Re: [Patents] Re: "Rent Seeking and Innovation"

[Roland Orre <orre@nada.kth.se>]

Greg has obviously some problems with logics. He uses the fact that
clever physical solutions exists as an argument for software being
patentable. These hardware constructs which make this doable could
possibly be patentable. The smart hardware solutions are those which
make general software logic possible to be implemented as hardware by
clever silicon compilers. He even use the programmable gate array,
which is just a trivial example of software moved to hardware logics,
as an example. Programmable gate arrays and such are just simple
examples of smart hardware constructs. I can't see how Greg can use
this as a serious argument that software should be patentable.
Below I reply to some of Greg's arguments.

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 01:05, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> >In the chip business you have to invest in building factories. In
> >software you don't.
> 
> Obviously you know nothing about the chip business.  There are many
> companies in the chip business that are nothing more than a bunch
> of programmers using circuit design tools.  They program their new
> circuit designs in languages like Verilog or SystemC, and then sell
> their designs to other companies to manufacture or embed into products.

Those who have implemented the physical constructs making these
design tools possible have certainly made inventions. OK, also when
using high level design tools you have certain physical boundaries
to consider as well, but, they are on the logical level, not on the
physical level.

> In the United States, sales and licensing of such designs, is a
> business worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year, as is the
> sales of such programming tools.

So what? Let those who make those design tools have their copyrights
and let them make money on their software. This is not a problem as
long as any part of these software tools are not being patented, then
they could become a serious threat towards making free software doing
the same job, as those design tools. Free software tools enhances the
development by competing with the copyrighted proprietary software.

I've had a private chat with Greg a few days ago. I've promised to
not reveal what was said, but obviously Greg doesn't understand
anything about free software and why free software is good for
the whole technical development of humanity (and others...:).

> And indeed as hardware/software codesign tools become more powerful,
> more chip people will end up behaving little different from the
> software people.  And as Field Programmable Gate Array technology
> becomes more powerful, chip people will have an alternative method
> to getting their designs into people's products.

So, what you are talking about here Greg, is to let software "take
over" to dismiss the great hardware inventions that make it possible
to overcome the limitations of the physics. This, that you can see
hardware as software is great, but from no point of view an argument
pro software patents. At least I can't see this as a "pro" argument.

> Once again, nothing special about software.  Just another technology
> using tools to make products.

Sorry Greg, it seems that your view is a little wrecked. You consider
the fact that someone has been able to implement smart hardware
solutions (silicon, bio, optical, quantum computers etc) to implement
software logic as making no differece between hardware and software.
You are simply wrong Greg! We need hardware inventions and we need
software that can run on this hardware. The software (at a certain
logical level) doesn't care about how the logics is implemented, it's
just a mathematical description of a logical process, independent of
hardware. It's an idea, an idea that belongs to us all, where everyone
can make their part in improving the software. Hardware and software
are independent and software as well as ideas can not be patented and
should never be.

Greg, if you should make a serious argument pro software patents,
you should tell how software patents can enhance the technological
development. I can only see software patents as an obstacle, 
a limiting factor. It may possible make some companies rich, but to
what use for the humanity? I guess that the goals of the humanity
are not to make someone rich as little as it is the capitalistic
system's goal to make someone rich. This is from my point of view
an adverse effect of the system. The potential to become rich may
be a motivational factor for the individual, but software patents
efficiently removes this potential from the ones not already being
rich. Software patents enhances monopoly which is acting against
the ideals of the capitalistic systems.

I think you Greg, and others who speak pro software patents, should
try to understand that software is not a way to become rich, there
will be no more Bill Gates. Software is a way to improve the world
and to share experience and ideas. Skills, not purchased monopoly,
should be the factors towards personal and companies development,
and as such serving humanity by real competition on the skill
level, not on the unfair monopoly level. 

Our company, http://www.neurologic.se is successfully implementing
exactly this business idea within data mining. The methods we use
are well known and thoroughly published.

Why do you want a monopolistic world, controlled by few, Greg?
Why don't you want fair competition Greg?

> Greg Aharonian
Roland Orre