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

[Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@1407.org>]

On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 10:52, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> > 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?

Of course not.

> What about the judicial security of software industry?

No software patents increases judicial security.

Software patents turns software developers into cows eating grass on a
mine-field. Every so often you have cow-tchup.

>  What about the
> interest of trade as patents allow an easy licensing system? etc. etc. 

In what is software patent licencing any easier that copyright based
licensing? I don't understand this. In copyright you don't even have to
do anything, just license.

> 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. 

For people wanting a free market, it is a bad thing.
For people wanting cheaper solutions to their problems, it is a bad
thing.
For people wanting the freedom to create, it is a bad thing.
...
...

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

Security: no software patents means you'll never be sued for any of the
potential hundreds of thousands of ideas in a full computer program
    == increased security.

Trade: no software patents mean that it is a free market, where a ratio
of best/cheaper solutions benefit society as a whole
    == trade is improved.

Legal Consistency: an EU Directive reaffirming Art. 52 (among other
things) creates legal consistency in the EU member-states.
    == the laws will be more similar

Whatever: please give more details for me to debunk as well.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part