Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9454 misc.int-property:583 comp.unix.bsd:6399 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.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: <1992Oct11.043358.5543@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <id.TFST.9F7@ferranti.com> <1992Oct6.071314.16966@netcom.com> <11738.Oct1103.23.3892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:33:58 GMT Lines: 134 In article <11738.Oct1103.23.3892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) writes: >In article <1992Oct6.071314.16966@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes: >> In any case, I am not trying to PROVE software patents are good. > >The LPF has many arguments against software patents---legal arguments, >economic arguments, moral arguments, and quite a few examples of >software patents which have hurt both society and individuals. Yes the LPF has many arguments. It is the opinion of the LPF that these have hurts society. It is the opinion of the LPF that there are no beneficial software patents. I too have many many arguments. It is my opinion that the harms that the LPF claims are not at all clearly harmful to society even if they have harmed individuals. Moreover, even conceding individual harms from individual patents against individual people, it is my opinion that there is little evidence that overall we aren't benefitted by patents, and the LPF advocates eliminating all software patents even if only a few are demonstrably harmful and the mass might be beneficial. That the LPF has arguments and opinions doesn't make them fact. That I too have arguments and opinions doesn't make them fact either. I am quite aware that this slices both ways. > You are unable to exhibit a single beneficial software patent. I've attempted to give plausable examples. I've done so in the positive and in the negative. I've attempted to address both the individual cases (such as the Xanadu case) and general cases (raising capital in the abstract). I see that Dan has not been persuaded by them. I can accept that. But I haven't been persuaded by Bernstein's examples either. That's all I claimed, not proof that patents are good or bad, but just that there is reason to doubt the LPF claims, and reasonable cases to be made for the economic value of patents. In my mind things are much more grey than black and white, so I don't agree with either extreme positionan and won't argue to prove an extreme postion wrong. I'll only argue to prove an extreme position extreme, and that things are perhaps less clear and more open to multiple interpretations. > Your only excuse >is that you aren't ``trying to PROVE software patents are good.'' Yet >you aren't admitting that software patents are bad. Yes, because I don't believe that they are uniformly bad nor that Dan has proved that. Nor has he "admitted" that software patents can do some good, probably because he isn't convinced by my counter-arguments. Sometimes that is how it is--unsettled, you can't convince everyone. That may be how it will like with legislators unless they all see things from Dan's perspective, and I don't think that there is enough evidence that they do yet. >The effects of software patents are the combined effects of each >individual software patent. How can you believe that software patents >might possibly be good if you can't come up with any examples where >they've helped? How do you expect to convince anyone else? I've given the examples that I think may suggest how they help (primarily in the raising of capital, and in the resulting mass availability). My goal is to raise the question of whether that mass availability to non-inventors and the economic vitality of the industry would exist if investors felt that there was insufficient protection of the intellectual property they invest in. And whether that is benefit enough for society. Dan doesn't think so, but I'm not sure that others might think that is sufficient value. In any case, unlike Dan, I'm not trying to convince but to raise a skeptical eye and ask whether there might not be reasonable positions that might reach different conclusions. Of course, your answer to that may depend on your prejudices and personal values, which are hard to have a useful discussion about. >You shouldn't have to speculate about the facts. There was one algorithm >patent granted as early as 1968 (to Goetz)... >The software industry was already thriving by 1968, when the first >algorithm patent appeared, and was booming by 1980, when the USPTO made >some unwarranted changes in its policies. One might argue when algorithm >patents were first ``possible''; I will accept Dan's claims that algorithm patents go back to 1968 (does he mean "mathematical algorithm" a distinction he raised recently in another post? We'll assume he does). To me this just gives further evidence to the claim that things didn't really change recently. So there should have been even more time to see the dangers. Yet every year the contribution of the software industry has grown dramatically (in terms of contribution to GNP, a societal benefit measure) --this is counter-evidence to the claim that software patents are hurting the industry and society. It's not causal proof, but it hasn't been proven coincidental either. Now some anti-patent advocated claimed that this was because it was just too soon to tell. I've argued that 12 years is a long time to tell especially for something that only has a 17 year duration, max. Now Dan wants us to turn back the clock further. FIne, that's even more years of counter evidence that the sky isn't falling. > keep in mind that the USPTO has >admitted to granting some algorithm patents which were invalid on their >face. People make mistakes. Legal systems have to deal with people. So they have means of appeal etc. The LPF proposal would avoid dealing with mistakes by throwing out the whole lot. But if there is potential benefit from the whole (something I think might be the case but Dan does not) then you could be throwing out the baby with the bath water. >> I don't believe that patents on algorithms per se are granted or >> upheld. > >You shouldn't have to speculate about the facts. The LZW patent is at >ftp.uu.net:doc/lzw-patent.Z. Claim 1 appears below. Do you mean to say >that this is not a mental process patent, simply because it talks about >a ``storage means''? Also signals. Can you come up with any example of the LZW >algorithm _per se_ which does not infringe upon the claim below? Sure, one that isn't used for data compression and data decompression. Use the same algorithms for such another purpose and you aren't covered. You can't accidentally invent LZW to do signal procesing or image enhancement or something else we can't even imagine and be prevented by this patent. And if you do it in your head without signal means or without storing the results on paper you have a clear defense, because these are explictly mentioned, and not in your mental process. -- 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