Re: [Patents] nice Greg newspeak lapse

[Flemming Bjerke <flem@bjerke.dk>]

Torsdag 20 maj 2004 20:11 wrote Gregory Aharonian about Re: [Patents] nice 
Greg newspeak lapse:
> 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.

Software is a unique technology, and you must convince us about that it is 
also an advantage to patent this unique technology. Your argument implies 
that all practices should patentable, because any practice could be a 
technique. (Sexual technique for instance. If would have been interesting 
Lewinsky had used a patented technique ... )
>
> Are there negative effects of software patents?  Sure, I should know, I
> got personally sued 
................
> 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.

Of course, some speculate in software patents, and of course, some will 
benefit from them. But, there is little support for the assertion that there 
would be insufficient investment funding available, if there were not 
software patents.
>
> Then there are educational benefits of software patents.  Much software
> available in source code form is horribly documented .........

Nevertheless, it is being developed with high speed.

>  While patent specifications are
> not the greatest of literary works, they do explain lots aspects of the
> software being patented 

Some patents give good explanations, many do not. But, have the 
specifications 
any significant effects on innovation? You do not argue for that.
>
> ..........Software is just another technology,
> another applied science, that the patent system will eventually figure
> out how to handle.

The same could be said about economics and political science. (Perhaps it 
would have been an advantage if Friedman had had a patent on privatization.) 
As long as technology is not defined, all application of science could be 
technology and therefore patentable according to your argument. 

>
> But that makes software patenting no different from biotech patenting,
> nanotech patenting, circuit patenting, etc. 

Perhaps all these patents are mainly harmful to society?

....................
>
> 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.

Egoistic motives are by themselves no argument for the benefit of society. (I 
want to make money, I rob the next old lady.) When you argue like this, it 
looks like you solely think of your own benefit and you do not bother whether 
it harms others or not.

As far as I can see, you far from argueing convincingly for your position.

Flemming