🚀 go-pugleaf

rms@mole.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:

>If the treaty described below is adopted, it will be impossible
>ever to get rid of software patents.

>One consequence is that the GNU project will come to an end.  Patents
>will effectively prohibit free software for other than obsolete
>purposes.  Nearly every program will infringe patents, but if it is to
>be a free program, the option of licensing those patents will not even
>be a possibility.

>If you would like to continue having better GNU software to use, or if
>you would like to be able to continue your own career without the
>constant danger of being sued, please send mail to
>league@prep.ai.mit.edu and find out how you can join the League for
>Programming Freedom.


>The "Basic Proposal" for Harmonization of U.S. and Worldwide
>Patent Laws Submitted by WIPO

>by Edward G. Fiorito

>...
>   On December 21, 1990, WIPO published a "Basic Proposal"
>draft treaty which will be submitted to a Diplomatic
>Conference to be held at The Hague June 3--28, 1991.  At
>that Conference the text of the WIPO draft treaty will be
>finalized and some or all of the participating countries
>will sign it at this Conference.  If it is ratified by the
>requisite number of countries at that time, the treaty will
>go into effect in those countries.  In the United States,
>the President must send the treaty to the Senate for
>consideration and vote.   Once the Senate approves, the
>treaty becomes law and our patent laws will be amended by
>Congress to comply with the provisions of the treaty.
>...

>Article 10---Fields of Technology
>1. Patent protection shall be available for inventions,
>   whether they concern products or processes, in all fields
>   of technology.

>(Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, Feb.
>1991, pages 83--109.)
 
Please elaborate on how this Article differs from the current patent law
and how this article adversely impacts distribution of "free" software.
 
Playing within the confines of the patent game, it would seem possible to
patent your invention or process and then distribute and license the 
invention or process of $1 ($.01?). It would seem that a patent would 
protect your invention from over commercialization. It would seem prudent
to advocate patent law and at the same time advocate streamlining the
process of obtaining a patent (including a reduction in cost of patenting
a process or invention). It would seem likely that a sufficiently robust
neural net application could be developed to automate much of the initial
patent search processing, eliminating many fees and charges. Software
patents would seem most amenable to automated patent processing via
an NN application. The software source code would have to be made available
and accessible. Thus, the overly commercial applications would have to
either submit to releasing source code or devise alternate means of "protecting"their applications (likely deemed outside the bounds of patent law).
 
thoughts, suggestions, comments?
 
barry

-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
| Barry B. Floyd                   \\\       barry_floyd@mts.rpi.edu |
| Manager Information Systems - HR    \\\          usere9w9@rpitsmts |
+-Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute--------------------troy, ny 12180-+