🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <878@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes:
>In article <10565@scolex.sco.COM> seanf@sco.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>
>> I guess you
>>also don't mind the fact that the industry would largely disappear?
>
>You repeat that assertion over and over, but never explain how it will
>happen. You also fail to explain why Ham Radio (and a dozen similar
>hobbies) continue to thrive despite being in fields that allow patents.

A ham radio reciever could conceivably infringe on maybe 5 circuit design
patents, at most perhaps.  There are only a few different things that
a radio reciever can possibly do, and in each submodule, most of the circuit
topologies will be mutually exclusive.

Contrast to computer software:  the possible spaces of programs is far
larger than that of all radio recievers (but not necessarily all electronic
circuits), and more importantly, is composed of hundreds or even thousands
of potentially patentable parts or methods.  I mean, when you make a ham
radio, do you have to research all possible patents on the possible ways
to manufacture transistors of a certain type, the patents on the processes
needed to extract the raw materials used in your solder?  If you make
ham radio recievers, you look up patents on "ham radio recievers", naturally.

Now, when you write a software program that has many parts to it, what
subject do you look up for patents?  There are conceivably thousands---because
you create almost all of the program by yourself.

  This is the type
of burden that would be placed upon programmers were software patents of
commonly used procedures to become widespread.   It is because software
is frequently created and recreated from nothing, with essentially
only intellectual powers that makes it inherently different from other
endeavors that are presently patentable.  (In analogy with the ham radio,
I see nothing wrong with charging royalties for the use of commericial
libraries, just as you have to buy the transistors in the circuit)

This is the same argument as to why mathematics is not patentable.  Any
mathemetician can think up some new mathematical structure and prove things
about it.  Now, suppose that theorems and methods were patentable:  now Mr.
Math would have to pay anytime he used say a diagonal counting method
(originally discovered in the 19th century) in a proof, or Cauchy's integral
formula, or a Fourier Transform.  (All of these are in my opinion utterly
more important than any software patent).  And all engineering work that
depended on those theorems would have to pay off the inventors. 

If software is patentable, then why isn't mathematics?  There is no
real distinction.

I find that most mathematics that would be worthy of a patent is far more
powerful and unobvious than all of these software patents.  (The real
reason, I think, that mathemeticians have not attempted more patents is
that the university environment doesn't put them in day-to-day contact
with *expletive-deleted* lawyers.)

The last reason I oppose software patents is sociological.  Much of the
standard practice of engineering and science and mathematics is based upon
the published and unpatented work of academic and government scientists.
In comparison, much of the standard practice of programming and engineering
(I don't mean "computer science"---which is often math) comes from a vigorous
commercial sector, which is more likely to attempt to file patents.  
Scientific & Engineering companies of course do file patents, but in
general for much more focused and specific applications than for software.
So the overall cost to society does not overwhelm the benefit to the firm.

Remember, these aren't absolute arguments against software patents.  But
also realize that there isn't an "inalienable right" to a patent---it is a
law of Congress, designed to be in society's best interest.  (Yes I know
that the existence of patents is guaranteed by the Constitution, but Congress
has final say on its implementation).  I strongly believe that society's
best interest is not served by patents on software and mathematics.  At a
minimum, the term of patents in these disciplines should be radically
reduced (say to 3 years), on account of their rapid pace of innovation.

>
>Doesn't make a lot of sense, but I certainly see a lot of hysteria!


Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu

"First thing we do, we kill all the lawyers."  --- Shakespeare