🚀 go-pugleaf

Here are more false assumptions by Waters:

	I have a file of about a hundred software patents, every one
	of which was quite innovative AT THE TIME FILED!

What's innovative to you may not be innovative to others.  This is
important because patents are not granted by a vote, they are granted
by a patent examiner who has a certain point of view.

	THat would seem to me to make patents much MORE useful since
	you can experiment and find truly original ways to do things
	without spending huge amounts of money in prototypes.

The amount of money being spent on prototypes has nothing to do with
the usefulness of patents.  Patents are only useful if they fulfill
the purpose set forth by the constitution (in the U.S.).

	When I look at the progress made in hardware from the 1960's
	to the present, then compare the progress in software I really
	have to wonder at statements like this.

Here you imply that the computer hardware industry was driven by
patents.  That is most assuredly not the case.  The microprocessor was
fundamental in the explosion of computing in the 70's, 80' and beyond.
The microprocessor patent was just granted in 1990.  There must have
been something other than patents which drove manufacturers to develop
better and faster microprocessors.  I guess they found that there were
rewards to be had despite the lack of a patent.  We're now finding
that the patent on the microprocessor may be more of a hindrance than
an economic incentive.

	[comments about software being less inovative than hardware]

I refer you to the etc directory of the emacs distribution which
contains a file named MOTIVATION for an interesting article about the
relationship between rewards and creativity.  The gist of it is that
rewards don't encourage innovation.  In fact, it may be true that
rewards discourage innovation.  Certainly rewards have not incouraged
Lotus to innovate.  They have there look-and-feel protection on 1-2-3
and they have done nothing to further the state-of-the-art in
spreadsheet technology.  They are sitting fat and happy.

	If I add to "the store of human knowledge" then I deserve some
	reward for it. If the "invention" is something "useful" and
	you want to use it then you should expect to pay me to teach
	you. 

You say this as if it is a law of nature that you deserve a reward.
That is totally false.  You don't *deserve* anything.  You only get
what the law gives you and that doesn't always correlate with our
sense of justice.  You should remember that the law was written by
humans and is therefor imperfect.  Also if the invention is truly
owned by the patent holder, why do we stop paying royalties after 17
years?  If the inventor truly deserves to be paid why don't we keep
paying her forever?  I hold that the inventor does *not* truly own the
invention and that patent protection was designed only to induce
inventors to reveal their secrets.

Patents might have been needed way back when inventors didn't always
bring there inventions to market but now there is no point to it.  We
can easily reverse engineer just about anything that is worthwhile.
And anything that is worthwhile is almost assured of making it to
market in this day and age.  Often it is the patent system itself
which discourages inventors from bringing inventions to market.  Don
Lancaster of Radio Electronics Magazine is famous for railing against
the patent system.  He has hundreds of stories of inventors wasting
huge sums of money on patents and never getting a dime in return
because they spent all their effort on getting the patent instead of
bringing the invention to market.

	It shows that the patents took a long time to issue and the
	ideas became widespread during that time.

You should ask yourself why did the ideas become widespread between
the time of filing and the time of issue.  The filing party almost
never advertises the impending patent because they are hoping to snare
other manufacturers.  So it would appear that the ideas become
widespread though independent invention.  This pretty much invalidates
the whole purpose of having a patent system in the first place.
Remember the whole idea isn't just to dole out rewards to inventors,
it's to bring inventions into the public domain.  If you don't agree
with this you better go back and reread the constitution.  That must
have been required material when you were in patent school.

	That is why the percentage of total system cost due to
	software has gone from insignificant in 1950 to the dominant
	cost today. 

I would argue that software patents will help to aggravate this
situation.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm against all patents not just software
patents.  If we are so proud of our capitalist system why do we have
an incentive to undermine the market?

Daniel R. Guilderson
ryan@cs.umb.edu