Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #74701False assumptions re: patents
From: David Vinayak Wallace
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1991 16:36
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1991 16:36
48 lines
2907 bytes
2907 bytes
Discussions about patent law often involve anti-software-patent folks complaining about things they presume are law, rather than looking up the law. Without intending to single out Mr. Waters specifically, here are a couple of counter-presumptions which are also incorrect. Date: 28 Feb 91 19:57:49 GMT From: waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) In article <1991Feb28.111753.2@minerva.inesc.pt> fmhv@minerva.inesc.pt (Fernando Manuel Vasconcelos) writes: [...] If you sell the code then you take your chances just like any other business. If you give it away without charge there is no profit in suing you is there? In fact, patentholders can sue people distributing material incorporating techniques covered by patents they hold. While this is less likely to be an issue with, say, steelmaking, it is relevent to software, where a company may use a patent to try to lock onto a marketplace, and would sue to attempt to prevent the distribution of a free alternative. (note by the way that it is difficult to use a patent to lock up a market becuase of the antitrust issues. However you could probably use this to prevent a free product because such a product would not bring you royalties). So software patents could prevent the spread of free software, even were it freely developed before the patent was issues (as long as it was after the patent was filed). >The first one adresses those who would have to grant the patents: >For those the problem would be: What criteria will we use to grant >a patent ? This is a difficult problem to solve. A problem which has been hashed out in every country of the world, with remarkable similarity in the results - the present patent system! In fact the Australian government studied the patent system a few years ago and decided that it no longer assisted progress, but rather hindered it. They decided to keep their patent system largely intact because they feared a trade embargo by the United States, not because they felt it would help competition. So grab that book before you grab the keyboard! -d
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<GUMBY.91Mar3113623@Cygnus.COM>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!shelby!neon!neon!gumbyReferences:
<861@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> <TREE.91Feb27122612@sadye.uvm.edu> <1991Feb28.111753.2@minerva.inesc.pt> <870@nddsun1.sps.mot.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,b0a85d23901c1430 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-03-03 19:56:45 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!shelby!neon!neon!gumby From: gumby@Cygnus.COM (David Vinayak Wallace) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: False assumptions re: patents Message-ID: <GUMBY.91Mar3113623@Cygnus.COM> Date: 3 Mar 91 16:36:23 GMT References: <861@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> <TREE.91Feb27122612@sadye.uvm.edu> <1991Feb28.111753.2@minerva.inesc.pt> <870@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> Sender: news@Neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Organization: Cygnus Support Lines: 48 In-Reply-To: waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com's message of 28 Feb 91 19:57:49 GMT