Re: [Patents] You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

[Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>]

I think Flemming meant by "work" the fact that one can define software
patenting within the existing legal system.

The issues are more :

 - does it work in the way patenting is intended, i.e. to support
innovation, economic growth and/or public welfare.
  (social contract)

 - is it compatible with the traditional view, undisputed a few years
ago, that ideas should not be owned.


---

another point is that the European council wants to patent programs as
products.  And that actually means the abstraction, independantly of
its material representation.  That means non-material, whatever
arguments you may have about the representation of thoughts.
  It is a platonistic entity.

It is actually similar for programs as processes, but the discussion
is more subtle.

The point is that a program is only what it is interpreted to be.

Bernard

PS the same problem exists with the genome.  The interpretation
depends on the cell it is in.


On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 05:27:19PM +0200, Francois PELLEGRINI wrote:
> 
> Re all,
> 
> Flemming Bjerke wrote:
> >>One can still also say that deciding if human
> >>feelings should be patented is a political matter.
> >>With this kind of reasoning, one can consider that
> >>everything is political, which it is in the sense
> >>that one can always pass laws deciding on this. But
> >>it is as if one would pass laws that enact that men
> >>should fly : it comes to nonsense when law is not
> >>backed by moral or by soundness.
> > 
> > The sad fact is that is not non-sense to patent software. It is possible, 
> > and 
> > it works. (I agree that it works badly and has bad consequences.)
> [...]
> > I am not sure, but perhaps it is practically possible to patent new ideas 
> > of 
> > litterature and movies. Hollywood would love it. If it is possible, I am 
> > sure 
> > EPO will try some day. Probably we would get a similar scenario as with 
> > software: Thousands of ideas are files, and because only a minority have 
> > economic significance, only a minority are effective.
> 
> There is a flaw in your reasoning : the fact
> that software patent, as well as biopatents,
> "work". This has no meaning.
> 
> If you consider that it "works" simply because many
> people have gotten some, you mistake means for ends.
> In the USA, where firearms are freely available, many
> people buy firearms because bandits have some, so the
> system of having weaponry "works", but the rate of
> crimes is not lower in the US compared to countries
> that ban free access to firearms. Pretty the opposite.
> 
> This situation is indeed very similar to the one of
> software patents. For the joy of weapon makers and
> weapon sellers.
> 
> Software patents would only "work" if they indeed
> favored innovation. Which is not the case, according
> to US figures and generalized criticisms heard during
> the Federal Trade Commission hearings.
> 
> 
>                               f.p.
> 

-- 
         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