From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@www.aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Dec 21 1999 - 19:08:09 MST
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 12/21/99 9:22:32 AM PST, I wrote:
>
> > Patent protection is critical to enabling visionary people to get
> > financial backing to test innovative ideas. You can't build
> > a company fast enough to keep the wolves away from your markets
> > unless you have legal means of protecting those innovations.
>
> Really? Monoclonal antibodies were never invented?
A quick query of IBM's patent network indicates 4987 patents on
monoclonal antibodies. They were invented and many subsets
were patented. What is the point?
> Open-source software doesn't exist?
No, Open source clearly exists.
>
> Lots of innovation happens without patents.
Of course. You have "copyrights", "trademarks" and "patents"
in different areas. You have people who want to innovate and
contribute those innovations to society or derive the benefits
from being percieved as "good guys" -- witness the "old"
Rockefeller foundation or the "new" Gates Foundation
they are generally entirely divorced from copyrights,
trademarks and patents.
> Patents slow innovation markedly by a) increasing legal costs
- yes, the legal costs are there, but there is *no* barrier
to an individual patenting an invention himself, he must
simply educate himself.
> b) requing patent searches
If this is true, then the process is getting easier
(goto http://www.patents.ibm.com)
> and c) creating complex negotiating requirements to address
> all the possible infringements.
That is the entire *point* of inventions.
I have two possible paths before me:
1) I can go work as a contract programmer for some XYZ company
programming whatever they would like to have programmed.
2) I can *invent* things that may contribute to the productivity
of society, patent those inventions and have companies & organizations
coming to me to license those inventions.
If you elimiminate patent/copyright/trademark law, you eliminate
the motivation for (2). At that point I'm going to go and be a
stupid contract programmer because there is nothing to prevent
anyone from stealing anything I invent.
> For an example of c), consider what will happen to software
> innovation if the current trend to patenting algorithms continues.
Patenting (previously generally known) algorithms is improper and
those tests *should* fail in court.
> We will soon be in a situation where every dozen lines of code
> is a possible infringment (oops, used an XOR in those graphics).
> If any sizable program requires negotiating on tens of thousands
> of patents, software innovation will basically be impossible.
Not entirely true. The semiconductor industry gets by with broad
cross-licensing agreements.
The fundamental question comes down to whether or not a patent
is *novel*! That is a requirement for patenting. If it isn't
novel then the patent should fall apart on a court apeal.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:06:10 MST