Re: Re(2): flow chart for a law [was: Re(2): [Patents] newsscan: Software patent limits 'go too far']

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron@free.fr>]

> >> As an economist, my view of a flow chart for a new law is :
> >> 
> >> 1. interested parties ask for a new law
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 2. economists study the consequences of the proposed reform
> >> 
> >> => if the costs induced by the law are higher than the expected
> >> benefits, then the process stops. We've to abandon the law.
> >> 
> >> => if the law creates more wealth for the society, then the process
> >> can continue.
> >
> >This is an utilitarianist point of view who can easily show its
> >limits.
> 
> Of course. But in this case the reform intends to create wealth. That
> needs to be proved.

Agreed, but this is specific to this case I believe. And the debate is
not just only about economics. I am not sure if it's even really first
about economics. 
 
> Economists have only to study what is the impact of software patents
> on innovation (and current studies conclude that it is negative). 
> Courts can then rely on these studies to take their decisions.
> Empirical evidence is already available thanks to the (bad) USA
> experience.

Is innovation the only point to take in consideration?
What about the judicial security of software industry? What about the
interest of trade as patents allow an easy licensing system? etc. etc. 

I think innovation is one point but if you stand to this argument,
people will just tell you that there are other interests that justify
patents even if it's negative for innovation. This argument simply means
that, for people who value innovation, patents should be a bad thing. 

> 
> >> 3. jurists, interested parties and politicians can debate about
> >> ethics, who will benefit the most of the new wealth created etc...
> >> Then the new law can be drafted.
> >> IMHO software patents have not successfully passed step 2. So,
> >debates> about ethics, law, etc, are not usefull.
> >
> >Well, the legislative process is already going on. 
> 
> Yes, and since economic studies have shown that software patents do
> not create wealth, it has to be made clear what is patentable
> (invention using forces of nature) and what is not. 

Yes but creation of wealth is not everything :-)
At least, I hope that you don't assume that wealth=money.

You must answer to people who will say they don't care about innovation
but they want security, trade, legal consistency, whatever...