From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 03:28:06 MST
(Aside: This thread still seems to be about patents hence the
"back to" subject)
Samantha Atkins writes:
> Brett Paatsch wrote:
> > Lee Daniel Crocker writes:
> >>First of all, let's change the rules: the burden of proof is on
> >>those who wish to support patents, not those who wish to
> >>remove them, because freedom should always be the default.
> >
> >>Patents reduce freedom.
>
> Let's say it differently then. Patents reduce the ability to
> innovate and to extend previous innovations.
This could depend on what one thinks is a real innovation.
This is what the US Patent and Trademark Office think
a patent is http://www.uspto.gov/main/glossary/index.html#p
"a property right granted by the Government of the United States
of America to an inventor "to exclude others from making, using,
offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States
or importing the invention into the United States" for a limited time
in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is
granted."
The words "in exchange for" are key. They suggest what the policy
reason is for having patents - that the invention be understandable
and potentially reproducable by anyone so interested after the patent
period expires. Even before the patent period expires academics can
often get to tinker (this may vary between patent systems). But any
particular patent that does not satisfy the quid pro quo between
inventor and government on behalf of society may not be worth the
paper its written on if it is challenged.
> This is seen
> especially clearly in the case of software patents.
There could be some real problems in software IP laws. Software
is relatively new compared to patent law and copyright law and it is
certainly possible the systems for optimising the quid pro quo in this
area are still being developed. If so there maybe opportunities to
innovate in developing the terrain but you may need to be willing
to step beyond IT alone to capitalise on them.
> If I did a
> reasonably complete patent search every time I designed and
> implemented a new system the legal cost would kill most of the
> projects before the design had even gelled.
If the system is small it is unlikely to be of much interest either to
you to protect or to someone else to check out and see if you
infringed their IP.
If the system is big then perhaps it is not wise to attempt to design
a substantial system without knowing what alternative means of
achieving the solution are already available.
Perhaps there is even a commercial opportunity in learning how
to do those searches for other people. Are you good at doing these
searches? This would seem to be a skill worth having just for personal
use if its readily acquirable (which I doubt) and maybe worth nutting
out and packaging into a general solution for other people like you if
it takes a lot of work but it can be systematised. Maybe you could
team up with an IP lawyer with some spare time.
> Voluntary licensing
> and variable fees [mean] that companies and individuals can
> prohibit would be competitors from even entering the game. We
> all lose by this.
There would be reasonable limits to what can be charged in terms
of licencing fees etc. That these limits are not tested legally because
of cost or lack of understanding of legal processes does not mean
that they can't be.
> Even fixed priced mandatory licensing introduce substantial
> drag and impetus to twist designs to avoid the additional costs.
I'm not really following your example here Samantha. Could be you
have a case for patent or IP reform (its certainly possible such exists
in IT) but I don't get enough detail from what your saying to know
that it is the patent or IP laws per se that are the problem.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 03:07:09 MST