Re: [Patents] nice Greg newspeak lapse

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

Hartmut writes (apparently based on an inability to read American English):

>And you won't find Greg claiming that patents are doing any good in the
>software field.  That's not one of his fallacies.

No, that is one of your fallacies.  I have repeatedly stated that software
is just another technology to be handled by the patent system, and that
the positive and negative effects of software patents are little different
(when you actually measure such economic statistics) to the positive and
negative effects of patents in other fields of technology.

Are there negative effects of software patents?  Sure, I should know, I
got personally sued over one completely pathetically crappy software
patent.  And many companies deal with the occasional software patent
demand letter for someone trying to assert a dubious software patent.

Are there positive effects of software patents?  Sure.  I work with many
lawyers who represent startups TRYING TO MAKE MONEY TO FORM A REAL BUSINESS
(I know that is a foreign concept to most of you), to help the lawyers help
their clients apply for software patents so that a) they can attract some
investment monies and/or b) be willing to invest THEIR OWN MONIES to
develop a new software product.

Then there are educational benefits of software patents.  Much software
available in source code form is horribly documented (if at all) and
provided with little context to where it fits in technology world and how
its structures and functions relate.  While patent specifications are
not the greatest of literary works, they do explain lots aspects of the
software being patented (though I would prefer claims to be more clearly
written to help this educational process).

I am well aware of and accept the reality of the negatives aspects of
software patents.  I am also well aware of and accept the reality of the
positive aspects of software patents.  Software is just another technology,
another applied science, that the patent system will eventually figure
out how to handle.

But that makes software patenting no different from biotech patenting,
nanotech patenting, circuit patenting, etc. (and indeed, patents in all
of these areas more and more make use of software, blurring the lines
between these TECHNOLOGIES).

Software is all process and method and structure.  Last I look, most
patent systems around the world are there to protect process, method
and structure.  And last I looked, all copyright systems EXPLICITLY
prohibit copyright protection for process and method and structure,
for software.  What's the fundamental component of Java?  METHODS.
The type of methods denied copyright protection, via Berne, by the
US, EU, and WIPO copyright statutes.  And unlike patents, copyrights
last an insane life of the author plus 75 years.  Assuming copyright
offers any protection to software (which is extremely little in the US,
and eventually European caselaw will catch up), why should the world
allow that software to be protected 100+ years?

Software is another just another technology comprising processes,
methods and structures for manipulating physical quantities - information.

But you all know this.  You know copyright offers little to no protection
for software, so by fighting software patents, you work towards your real
goal - no legal protection of any form for software.  A contentious goal
to be sure, a fun one to watch you all try to achieve.  But at least be
honest and admit your true proletariat intentions to eliminate all forms
of legal protection for software.

Me, I want to make lots of money.  If I can ever come up with a good
software idea, you can bet your bottles of Guinness I am going to apply
for a software patent.

Greg Aharonian