[ILUG] Enda Kenny and Patents

[kevin lyda]

On Sun, Jul 11, 2004 at 06:25:32PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004, kevin lyda wrote:
> > the concept of a patent is to give inventors a short-term monopoly to
> > recoup their research and development efforts.
> Right, and why shouldn't that apply to software "innovations" too?

i was defining patents to a person who claimed he was not an expert in
the field.  it would seem wise when talking to a "layman" to define the
terms being discussed.

> > none of those are patented.
> Which says nothing of the argument against software patents.

actually, yes it does.  my point is that the software industry has
progressed quite well w/o patents.

> > therefore, the most compelling argument against software patents is 
> > that they are not required.
> not really.

um, yes it is.

patents exist as a tool for governments to encourage innovation.  if
innovation is already occuring in a field w/o patents, then the tool
is not required.

the argument that pro-software patent people make is that software
patents are required for innovation.  that argument is demostrably
false.

> Preventing competition is fundamental to the concept of patents, 
> hence that property of itself is not an argument against them.

uh, you're not getting the point.  yes, a patent is a gov't granted
monopoly.  however it is granted with the goal of encouraging innovation.
however the software field was already generating a huge amount of
innovation before software patents even existed.

> But the innovations you have cited were all developed in the public 
> sector and hence not subject to competitive pressure anyway, or not 
> exactly patentable (word processor would be hard to patent) or 
> actually *were* patented (ie the spreadsheet, see 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet, indeed that helped set 
> precedent for software patents).

uh, no.  the link you point out has a few flaws.  first, the credited
inventor of the spreadsheet is not the person who got the patent - all
the way back in 1961.  second, visicalc came a while after that patent
expired.  i doubt visicalc's creator even knew about the patent.

> > patents are a useful tool in other industries.
> Why wouldnt they be useful in the software industry then?

they demonstrably have not been.  we coulf go into long, technical
discussions as to why, however the request was for a letter describing
the issue for a layman.  the links already presented go into much
further detail - and i suspect a few minutes into those links enda
kenny's eyes would glaze over and he'd move onto more important issues.

> That's an argument for state funding of innovation in software. Never 
> going to fly in the 1st world :). The whole point of patents is to 
> make investment in R&D attractive to the /private/ sector, and not 
> have to have state funding.

first all that funding WAS from the 1st world.  second i was describing
the ways gov't has benefited the software industry in a positive way.  i
wasn't saying it should continue, i was merely pointing out that not all
government interaction with the software industry is unwelcome - just
software patents.

> Universities, especially in US, make a lot of money by way of the 
> patent system, either by direct patent licensing or by spinning off 
> successful research into commercial entities or by acting as "R&D for 
> hire" for private sector interests (who then reap the rewards of 
> patent licencing if the R&D is successful).

again, that's a recent phenomenon.

kevin

-- 
american citizen?  register to vote: ~ florida voters - make sure you
https://register.votenet.com/LWV/    ~ haven't been struck from the
live overseas?  look here:           ~ voting lists.  check for your name
http://www.tellanamericantovote.com/ ~ here: http://tinyurl.com/2hbuj