X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <rms@gnu.org>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [199.232.76.164])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07EC40CDC
	for <patents@aful.org>; Tue,  6 May 2003 12:18:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 19CzS9-00068x-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 06:13:41 -0400
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: xdrudis@tinet.org, russell@flora.ca, nb@norbert.ch,
	fsl-discuss@alt.org, DMCA-Activists@gnu.org,
	DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org, fairuse-discuss@nyfairuse.org,
	patents@aful.org, seth.johnson@realmeasures.dyndns.org,
	xdrudis@tinet.org, iriXx@iriXx.org,
	C-FIT_Community@realmeasures.dyndns.org, s11@member.fsf.org,
	simo.sorce@xsec.it, phm@a2e.de, srctran@world.std.com,
	orre@nada.kth.se
Cc: Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>
In-reply-to: <200305051506.LAA23430@world.std.com> (message from Gregory
	Aharonian on Mon, 5 May 2003 11:06:23 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: [fsl-discuss] Re: [Patents] The politics of software
    over-protection -- moving forward..
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304251818250.10329-100000@querty.oas.a2e.de>
    <Pine.LNX.4.44.0304251313310.23739-100000@calcutta3.flora.ca>
    <200304252331.TAA03772@world.std.com> <200304261659.MAA21705@world.std.com>
    <E19A0OP-0001nk-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
    <1052029205.2975.6454.camel@localhost>
    <20030504083226.GB1019@crosswinds.net> <200305051506.LAA23430@world.std.com>
Message-Id: <E19CzS9-00068x-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 06:13:41 -0400
X-Validation-by: rms@gnu.org

    Richard, by "harmless" I can assume you also mean "useless",

When I said "harmless", I meant "harmless", as in "not dangerous to
anyone."

I would not say that software patents are "useless" or "useful",
because both of those terms embody an assumption that (as you know) I
do not agree with.  It would be like asking how useful SARS is.  A
software patent can only harm; what may vary is the amount.

					      Since you are equating such a
    narrowly scoped software patent with software copyright,

I do not equate them.  A software patent which covered the whole of a
single program would be much narrower than a copyright.

							     can I assume
    you thus believe that software copyright for a computer program is
    also "harmless" and "useless" in offering no real exclusionary
    protection?

I will not describe either copyrights or patents as "protection"
because of the bias inherent in that term.  However, I think software
copyright is quite effective for the job I use it for.


All in all, you don't seem to be doing a good job of stating my views.
I suggest you leave that to me, and stick to stating your own views.

