X-Sympa-To: patents
Return-Path: <jm@poure.com>
Delivered-To: patents@aful.org
Received: from www2.translationforge.com (easyconnect2121136-58.clients.easynet.fr [212.11.36.58])
	by stabilite.aful.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4664C0C9
	for <patents@aful.org>; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 11:15:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from win2000.translationforge.com (win2000.translationforge.com [192.168.0.100])
	by www2.translationforge.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i0J9oOLP032008;
	Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:50:25 +0100
From: Jean-Michel POURE <jm@poure.com>
Reply-To: jm@poure.com
To: "Brenno J.S.A.A.F. de Winter" <brenno@dewinter.com>,
	patents@aful.org
Subject: Polluted area, do not enter
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:50:23 +0100
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <400AED50.6050604@dewinter.com>
In-Reply-To: <400AED50.6050604@dewinter.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200401191050.23877.jm@poure.com>
X-Validation-by: jm@poure.com

Dear Brenno,

You are pointing out crucial issues. The system of patents is aging and com=
ing=20
to a point where it produces side-effects contrary to its primary goals.

Firstly, this decision shows that the EPO knowledge in patent theory is clo=
se=20
to ZERO. In theory, the REGISTRATION price of patents should cover ALL cost=
s=20
of analysis and publishing.

If the price for accessing patent information is too high, this decision of=
=20
the EPO could invalidate ANY patent on software, at least in France.

This makes me think of some friend of mine, who recently entered the Human=
=20
resources department of a large company. After announcing that she was=20
pregnant, she got fired, which is absolutely-not-allowed in France.

In most countries, chapter-one lesson-one of the Human Resources rules is: =
"do=20
not fire a pregnant woman". But in some large companies, "specialists" are=
=20
sometimes "complete fools".=20

Secondly, this decision shows, to some extent, that patents on software are=
=20
comparable to pollution. Like pollution, patents on software:
- are side-effects of a developed economy.
- stay a long time in the environment before they are eliminated.
- cost more than what they bring to the economy.
- are hidden to prevent analysis.
- prevent any further creation of riches (you cannot build on polluted soil=
s).

The decision of the EPO to stop publishing full patent information freely i=
s=20
comparable to printing a "Polluted area, do not enter" sign. Or "We can tur=
n=20
garbage into gold, please proceed with payment.".

Countries registering patents on software are not well aware of the cost of=
=20
"unregistering them". Patents are registered at the cost of investment by=
=20
companies, which is a financial concept meaning anything. You can always=20
pretend that the right-click patent needed 100.000 human days of work.

Therefore, even the budget of a year of a country would not suffice to=20
eliminate patents on software. For governments, the solutions are either:

1) Clear the pollution (pay back companies to some extent). The minimum wou=
ld=20
be to pay back registration fees, but there is no real limit to possible=20
compensations.

or

2) Accept pollution (until the system blows-up). The United-States are comi=
ng=20
to the point where the system is blowing up. The EPO would like to hide the=
se=20
facts.

or

3) Bury the pollution into the soils and wait 20 year. And prevent any furt=
her=20
pollution from now on. This is probably the choice of the European=20
Parliament.

In the end, the best solution is to smile of Human Greed and Stupidity.

Best regards,
Jean-Michel Pour=E9

> =A0- The EPO is no longer publishing full patent information, using
> =A0 =A0DRM (password protected PDF files) and incomplete publication
> =A0 =A0to protect its proprietary database vending partners, thus
> =A0 =A0making the=A0=A0=A0FFII Software Patent Statistics
> http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/stats/ of last year incomplete.
>
> 1. Doest this mean ordinary people cannot get to the patent information
> any more?
> 2. If this is the case, what is the value of a patent? The logic behind
> it once was quite simple: A person has a patent to share his invention
> with the world and doesn't loose the rights to the invention. Now one
> gets rights, but doesn't share information in return.
> 3. How can anyone prevent that one violates 'secret' patents?
> 4. What is the overall value of a patent now? And where does it differ
> from copyright then?


