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

[Simo Sorce <simo.sorce@xsec.it>]

On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 13:37, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:

> > 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 :-)

No emotions, it is a well established figure used often when speaking
about 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.

What's vague in copyright? If you copy the same software you infringe,
if you reimplement it from scratch you do not, I do not see the
vagueness you claim.

>  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.

That's exactly the good feature of the copyright, not a defect!

>  Plus, the patent in itself is often
> seen as a proof of you right that will facilitate your trade.

I do not understand this claim sorry.

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

So which is the problem ? Seem I'm missing something ...

> > 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. 

But:
A) You are free to create and trade new works using the same ideas of
the previous ones freely, you do not have to avoid ideas when creating a
new copyrighted work. Of course missing to add something interesting
will make your work less valuable, and that's just.

B) Copyright has also been twisted way too much into a bad thing, but
that's OT

> > 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.

A) That's called trade/industrial secret, and is fully implemented today
in software as most of it is proprietary and closed source, software
patents do not reveal any source code, so there is no gain with software
patents.

B) Secrecy in software is not a problem, things get reinvented every
day, and problems solved when it's needed.

> You just can't trade it as easily as with patents. 

That's not a pro for patents either.

> > 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!

Wrong, this is very wrong. Author's right does not block you from
writing a different text that asys the same things, that's what good in
copyright and bad in patents. With copyright you have alternatives, with
software patents not, there you have monopolies on whole class of
problems not on solutions.

> > > 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.
> 
> Not sure about it. With author's right system, I can always sue you for
> faking my software.

Always? Please don't joke ... if I haven't copied down your source you
cannot sue me for nothing.

>  Plus as I said before, it's probably more
> complicated to tell which one increases judicial security the most. 

But we know which one decreases judicial security the most :-)

> > 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.
> 
> Author's right also works as a monopoly, and it's longer and harder than
> patents.

While current (c) duration is bad (but OT) it doesn't really matter, you
can rewrite software if it's not free, that's not a problem, you can
choose what to do, with patents you're completely blocked.

> I think that you're right on this point because reverse
> engineering is allowed. I am not sure about it. 

Reverse engeeniring is about studying/interfacing with existing
software, you do not need rev.eng. to reproduce programs functionalities
by yourself. At worst you will have to programs that have same
functionalities but are incompatible, that's not a problem most of the
time.

> Well, as long as nobody take it personnaly... 
> I really think it's important to push our arguments against software
> patents the furthest we can! I hope all of you understand it that way.
> Of course it looks like a huge troll and I am sorry for it :-)

We only would like to progress in the discussion, not restarting it
every few months :-)

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce@xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l. - http://www.xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
mobile: +39 329 328 7702
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399