🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: misc.int-property
Article #68

Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.

#68
From: Scott Mcgregor
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:20
40 lines
2696 bytes
In article <id.Q_2U.OZF@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>to AT&T code. Which is in fact the case. Where else could I have seen it?
You could have seen it from code that was created by someone who did
have access to the AT&T code at one time, wrote a "freeware" program
and passed it around the net.  If you leverage from that free code you
might be essentially using stolen property unknowingly.  AT&T may not
even need to prove the trail if the allegedly coincidental aspects of
the code are similar enough the jury may be more prone to believe that
you reused stolen code than that you reinvented it from scratch. What
is similar enough to convince a jury can be a pretty hard to predict thing.

>What, fewer suits because we have software patents?

Fewer suits because licenses are more widespread, standardized and
restrict suits against members over usage issues.

>I have made no such claim. I claim that SOFTWARE PATENTS only benefit
>lawyers, and the best possible solution you have come up with to the
>problem benefits lawyers *more than* it does inventors, over the
>rational status quo where software patents do not exist.

Can you show me how software patents fail to benefit inventors who
hold them and use them to acquire capital, and also how they fail to
benefit investors to invest in firms that hold them?  These are
non-lawyer groups who seem to benefit from patents. Are they not
benefiting?  And concerning the clearinghouse, can you show that
the solution I have raised benefits lawyers more than inventors, when
in cases of other clearinghouses their establishment has lead to fewer
suits, fewer individual licenses (and their requisite legal review)
and has raised the average royalty receipts of the intellectual property
holders who submit their property?  Does this not suggest a reduction
in overal legal costs (less benefit to lawyers) and more royalties (a
greater benefit to inventors)?
-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1992Oct16.042045.20255@netcom.com>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcgregor
References: <id.OR0U.JXD@ferranti.com> <1992Oct13.053105.20874@netcom.com> <id.Q_2U.OZF@ferranti.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: misc.int-property
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!sgiblab!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!mcgregor
From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Message-ID: <1992Oct16.042045.20255@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
References: <id.OR0U.JXD@ferranti.com> <1992Oct13.053105.20874@netcom.com> <id.Q_2U.OZF@ferranti.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:20:45 GMT
Lines: 43