Re: [Patents] Pamela Samuelson

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

> http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~pam/papers/cacm%20patent%20reform.pdf
> 
> A carefull reading of above article would save millions of  euros for the
> Commission, in particular the text bellow:

This statement makes no sense to me.  The Commission isn't spending
millions of euros for patent legislation.  They believe that their
directive project of 2002-02-20 has zero costs (see accounting statement
at the end and comments at http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/eubsa-swpat0202/).
And so far I can't see any workable reform proposal in the US, only
proposals based on "patent quality", i.e. a tacit consensus between patent
lobby and scholars:  patent lawyers get unlimited patentability, scholars
get chance to engage in favorably funded studies on the subject.

> Some CACM readers may think that there should be no patents on
> software-related  inventions. 

Here Samuelson is already submitting to the rhetoric of the patent lobby.
See Autodesk (Jim Warren) statement of 1994

        http://swpat.ffii.org/archive/quotes/#autodesk94

> Whatever the merits of this position [5], the debate in the U.S. has
> shifted from this issue to that of patent quality.

Certain quarters want it to shift there, and Samelson is submitting to 
that pressure.

> The information technology industry,

Again rhetoric of the patent lobby.

> and in particular, the software industry, would greatly benefit if the
> patent reforms discussed in this column were adopted. As the FTC report
> points out, a well-functioning patent system promotes innovation and
> competition,

An easily abused dogmatic tautology.

Making the system as it is function well in terms of prior-art-searching 
etc does not make it promote innovation.

> and a dysfunctional patent system can undermine both societal goals.
> Computing professionals can-and should-help to create the momentum
> necessary to make patent reform in the U.S. a reality.

They can create that momentum by refusing to do what Samuelson is doing:
lending legitimacy to the "realities" created by the patent movement
without legislative oversight and without consent from the concerned
parties.  Working on "patent reform" and "patent quality" can be one of
the ways of lending legitimacy to the movement, and the movement will
tolerate such work only to the extent that it does this.  They will not
tolerate any reform that leads to a predictable reduction of the number of
patents granted.  Such a reform, be it on subject matter or on
non-obviousness, can take place only if the patent movement is ousted from
its bastions of power.
 
> The EC, by forcing a narrow-minded, explicity declaration over software
> patentability, will miss the real job opportunity on improvement of patent
> system. US has already moved far ahead in this process.

The US is far behind and now being led into irrelevant and ineffective
reform discussions, based on a consensus between power-holders who will
reject any real reform and scholars who want a niche in which well-funded
studies can be conducted without offending the power-holders.

The EC on the other hand just needs to give up its unreasoned resistance
to the European Parliament and most problems will be solved in a thourough
way that, according to Samuelson, is beyond reach of the USA at the
moment.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
330,000 votes 3000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/