Re: [Patents] Voice of patenting business

[Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>]

Bernard Lang wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 09:03:27AM +0400, Jacek Gancarson wrote:
> >
> > Bad Patent Reform
> >
> > Many venture capitalists and inventors worry that the reform will have a
> > chilling effect on innovation. The system we have now "provides a 
> > mechanism
> > for innovators to recoup research investments," says John Reich, of
> > Minneapolis law firm Merchant & Gould, who has represented both inventors
> > and global corporations. Take away patent protection, he adds, and 
> > "there's
> > not a lot of incentive to bring products to market."
> >
> > Not surprisingly, corporations are more enthusiastic about the overhaul.
> > "The changes would as a general matter reduce the potency of a tool used
> > more by small companies," says Polk Wagner, a law professor at the
> > University of Pennsylvania.
> 
> I do not understand this last statement ... is that FUD


It's really sly FUD.

The article casts the debate as small versus evil, large, corporations, in a
structure that reverses the account of how the game has actually been
played.

If the big bad corporations are enthusiastic about the changes, then the
changes must be bad, right?

It presents the pro-software patent arguments as if they're all about what
small guys want; and it presents the rationale (a mechanism to recoup
research investments) in a place in the exposition that doesn't render the
general implication of the piece (the changes are bad) susceptible to any
criticism of that rationale in itself; and it undermines the ability to tell
the real story of what has actually been going on, so it's harder to hold
the players accountable for what they've actually been up to.

It's really a CYA spin, deliberately airing their rationales in a safe place
in the expositional structure (the "small guy" side).

Watch; since we're just coming to the point where the legislative discourse
on software patents is about to open up, we'll start to see the ones who had
been corrupting the process start talking about how they've actually been
trying to *save* the process from a corruption implied by knee-jerk class
resentment conveyed by artful exercises such as this article.  Once you
unpack it (and assuming my prediction comes true), it's possible to see how
this move is actually a sign of weakness of the other side.

We're about to start hearing all sorts of true "nature of algorithms and
software" talk busting out in the empowered political arena -- and the other
side knows that once that stuff is actually admitted into the discourse, all
their positions will crumble to pieces almost immediately.  It actually was
always, all along, all about keeping the political machinations privileged
and keeping the truth out.

Seth






> 
> weak patents are more a weapon for those who rely more on
> legal threats than on claim quality.  That means rich guys.
> 
> Any comment by a lawyer on these issues is suspicious anyway ...  Well
> some lawyers have proved intelligence + good faith, but they remain
> exceptions.
> 
> Bernard
> 
> > http://www.forbes.com/feeds/inc/2004/03/15/incinnovation.html
> 
> --
>          Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
>            SIGNEZ    http://petition.eurolinux.org/    SIGN
> 
> Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
> http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
>             INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
>          Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
>                  CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

-- 

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use
http://www.nyfairuse.org

[CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.