Re: [Patents] "Further technical effect"

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Sat, 17 May 2003, Gregory Aharonian wrote:

> I have been collecting data on software and software patents for ten years
> much of which I publish.  There is no emprical evidence that software
> innovation is being reduced because of patents - no evidence when you
> actually measure things.

  There is also:

  a) No evidence that Greg has researched software innovation outside of
his vary narrow field of research.  He has all but admitted multiple times
that he is unaware of the positive impacts of the Free/Libre and Open
Source Software movements on software creation.  FLOSS is pretty critical
in the area of ICT governance software.

  Where I don't pretend to talk for the entirely different parts of the
software sectors, as I am focused on ICT governance software, Greg does
try to speak to parts of the industry that he has not demonstrated
awareness of.


  b) More importantly, there is no evidence to prove that software patents
are helpful to software innovation.  The burden of proof *must* be on
those who wish to inflict extremist public policy on an industry in the
form of government protectionism, not on those who wish governments to
step aside and allow the industry to create its own incentives.
  Public policy which contradicts all the pro-competition and pro-free 
market policies of most western governments should be used with extreme 
caution, not used to destabilize the industry as has been the case now.

  Where is Greg's articles that *prove* that software patents are necessary 
for software innovation?  Where is the *proof* that the industry is 
falling apart without them?  The burden is on those promoting software 
patents to *prove* necessity, not for us to prove any harm.  I'm not going 
to bother putting time into research which I believe to be entirely 
unnecessary when those on the other side haven't done their homework.



  Greg claims there is no evidence that software patents harm innovation.  
He probably didn't notice the Dot-com bubble either.  During that time we
had companies that had no products other than their stocks, and that
caused market destabilization.  Currently we have companies that have no
products other than questionable IP (such as SCO - providing a link for
Greg who may not know about this yet
<http://weblog.flora.ca/article.php3?story_id=416> ), which similarly is
destabilizing the industry.  No evidence or either the dot-com bubble or
the dot-patent bubble?  Ya, right.


  Greg can go on-and-on about his data, which is useful in what it
actually says (largely about the patent quality problem), but it does not
adequately support software patents to justify the existence of software
patents.  His backward 'guilt until proven innocent' attitude that those
opposed to government protectionism should be the ones bring forward proof
is likely based on his very narrow view of the industry, always bringing
up his physics credentials.

  Greg also brings up his business as a patent consultant that partly
creates a dependency on the existence (and low quality) of software
patents : there are none so blind as those who are financially rewarded to
not see.

---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/