Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9480 misc.int-property:590 comp.unix.bsd:6513 Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!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: <1992Oct13.055638.23596@netcom.com> Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <11738.Oct1103.23.3892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <1992Oct11.043358.5543@netcom.com> <id.6S0U.TRE@ferranti.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:56:38 GMT Lines: 60 In article <id.6S0U.TRE@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >They haven't just harmed individuals. For example, the Pike patent prevents >people from building a window system that uses backing store in a certain >way -- which happens to be the obvious and most effective way. This harms >everyone who uses a computer system running a window system, since it forces >them to use about twice as much RAM or a much faster CPU. No, the Pike patent only requires them to license the patent from AT&T or risk a suit. My understanding is that it is in their 2% royalty licensing category. If anyone knows differently, please tell us. A 2% royalty is very cheap as royalties go. Most all AT&T patents are licensable for royalties varying from 1% to 5%. By the way, the Pike patent addresses window systems with "displays" and physical "memory". This is the kind of patent that might easily appear to a jury to be a physical process patent and not a "pure software" patent. >The LPF advocates eliminating all software patents because they have found >a number of demonstrably harmful ones and no evidence whatsoever that the >mass might be beneficial. In fact, the best evidence is that there is no >observable benefit to patents on purely software systems. LPF dismisses the possibility that patents may have contributed to the successful capitalization of software firms, with no evidence that they weren't a factor. There is a statistical correlation between the increasing number of patents received by software development firms and the total growth of the capitalization of the software industry, and of its revenues and contribution to the GNP. Admittedly, this isn't causal evidence, but no ironclad counter argument has been put forth either. So it remains a matter of opinion. >> I've attempted to give plausable examples. > >But you haven't given a single real example. The opposing side has given many. I guess it comes down to what you mean by "real". I think that Robert Withrow is correct, that no patent, even non software patents, can meet the standard of proof being asked for. I think the best evidence has to do with raising capital, but that doesn't seem to meet Peter's requirements for "real" because they aren't laboratory cases in which other issues such as copyrights, trade secrets, etc. could be factors. But "real" life business situations rarely have such laboratory clarity. At the same time, the opposing side's cases are also contaminated with other issues of copyright, trade-secrets, and even fiscal management ability, but they ignore these complications, and claim that it is only patents that caused these problems. They extrapolate that because a patent grants a limited monopoly to conclude that it prevents everyone from using it, when in fact it might be and often is cheaply licensable. -- 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