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 12:37, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
> > > What about the judicial security of software industry?
> > No software patents increases judicial security.
> This is to demonstrate. 

Ok, here's mathematical proof:

1. Judicial security == insure that you are not committing a software
patent infringement.
2. With software patentes, there is the risk of committing an
infringement.
3. Without software patents, there's no infringement to commit.

Therefore, no software patents ==> greater judicial security.

Q.E.D.

> > Software patents turns software developers into cows eating grass on a
> > mine-field. Every so often you have cow-tchup.
> Hum, please, don't get emotionnal :-)

I'm not. It's a perfectly applicable analogy used frequently in the
software patent context. It does appear emotional, because it is in fact
that effective. It truly represents the real and present danger of
software patents.
 
> > >  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.
> 
> Well, the argument in favor of patents would be to say that author's
> right are often vague. It's difficult to say when someone is infringing
> your right because  protection is granted to "original" material and not
> to "new" material like in patents. Plus, the patent in itself is often
> seen as a proof of you right that will facilitate your trade.

Yes, but many arguments in favour of software patents come from
ignorance, the "demanded 'protection'" is granted by copyright laws.

> Try to find other arguments in favor of patents on that point, it's
> important to see the problem globally.

I'm not talking about patents in general but about software patents. I
can't really speak for other kinds of tech since I'm not familiar enough
with them to provide insight.

> > For people wanting a free market, it is a bad thing.
> Well, author's right also work as a monopoly system. It's not a free
> market system in any way! Except if people decides to leave their
> creation to the public but they can also do it with the patent system. 

Not just that, but also doesn't encumber better alternative solutions to
the same problem. So while unauthorised distribution of works does work 
well in the software market (where those who don't want to fully publish
their solution are allowed to), with software patents you're blocking
almost all strains of thought over the problem and potential solutions.

> > For people wanting cheaper solutions to their problems, it is a bad
> > thing.
> ... This is also to demonstrate because even with patents, if you don't
> make the deposit, nobody else can and your invention is still protected.
> You just can't trade it as easily as with patents. 

You're diverting our attention with false underlying assumptions.
Please stop:            COMPUTER PROGRAMS ARE NOT INVENTIONS

1. With software patents only one person can authorise a given solution
2. If there's only one supplier, then (s/)he can do whatever to increase
profit
3. In a free market many can supply their own solutions to one problem,
competing for the consumer's preference (ergo money)

Therefore, If one supplier is the only authorised supplier for the
solution to a problem there is no free market.

Q.E.D.

> > For people wanting the freedom to create, it is a bad thing.
> That's for sure but the author's right is not better on that point
> either since it's also a monopoly system!

No. That's polluting the truth:
   People can independently create their own solutions.

In the case of software this is relatively easy. If one product aims to
be as quick as possible, you can aim to be as compliant as possible. The
code you write will certainly follow a different path.
So anyone has the freedom to create, just not to copy one existing
solution and claiming it their own.

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