🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCG.92Aug14175742@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> I am quite confident that many, many academic and even commercial
> inventors would be happy to have their work patented in the name of the
> LPF to this end, instead of putting their inventions in the public
> domain, where they cannot be used to extract concessions from
> proprietary patent owners.

If the LPF wanted software patents to continue that would be a fine idea.
The LPF is, however, opposed to software patents is general and should
not compromise their stand.

The correct idea is to start a separate organization, which will act
as a patent clearing house, and permit anyone to join who agrees to
license _all_ their software patents to any other member at no charge.
No holding back or the organization loses rights to _all_ patents held
by the "League for Software Patent Exchange".

>The first time I put out this idea Stallman said that patents are
>expensive, unlike copyrights, and therefore developing a free patent
>portfolio was beyond the means of the LPF, or the FSF for that matter.

This is correct.  [Hearsay follows] The average cost of to obtain a
patent is around $2000 each, not counting the salary of patent author.

>Has the situation changed?

No.  If anything it will get worse as salaries at the Patent & Trademark
Office [PTO] rise.  Due to a Reagan plan, the PTO is supposed to be
self-supporting.  It used to be subsidized, but it is now supposed to
be charging all its costs back to the people who use its services.
Depending upon your economic point of view, this is either good or bad.

Aydin Edguer