From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-18 11:31:56 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Robert C. Leif" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: RE: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets? Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 11:31:01 -0700 Organization: ENST, France Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1061231510 40607 137.194.161.2 (18 Aug 2003 18:31:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:31:50 +0000 (UTC) To: "'Ludovic Brenta'" , Return-Path: X-Envelope-From: rleif@rleif.com X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5329 Thread-Index: AcNlpCECgUJUgbToQx2uBqD8p8OaIwAAzVDA In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41687 Date: 2003-08-18T11:31:01-07:00 Why do you want a system that discriminates against software inventors? If I invent a new chemical or use for that chemical or clinical instrument, I can receive significant royalties. However, if I do the equivalent in software, you and others believe that these intellectual contributions should be free. I also believe that mathematicians should be able to profit from their discoveries. Again, what you propose is the poverty, chastity, and obedience nonsense. Most of the capitalists really like getting technology for free. I still favor all power to the technocrats. Bob Leif Robert C. Leif, Ph.D. Email rleif@rleif.com -----Original Message----- From: Ludovic Brenta [mailto:ludovic.brenta@insalien.org] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 12:21 AM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Software Patent Concerns => New Black Markets? The Free Software Foundation is campaigning against software patents. The arguments are well known by now. First, software consists of algorithms, and algorithms are a special form of mathematical proof. Can you patent a mathematical proof? For example, can you patent to algorithm to compute the value of e using the series: e = 1 + sum of (1/n!) ? The answer, historically, has been a resounding NO. Mathematical proofs are published under copyright law, not patent law. Software may also be construed as a kind of musical partition, which is "played" by the computer. And music is not patentable. What is patentable is the computer itself, i.e. the hardware, and the process to manufacture it. Second, the patent system was designed to promote the advancement of technology. By contrast, software patents tend to hinder such advancement, as Warren pointed out. Third, the patent system was created in the interest of the general public. Instead, software patents are being used in the interest of a few mega-corporations. They mainly use their portfolios of patents in two ways. One way (a) is to block smaller competitors from entering a market; this includes SMEs, and hobbyist programmers who work for free and cannot afford a lawsuit, _even if they win the lawsuit in the end_. The other way (b) is to enter into "cross-licensing agreements" with their bigger competitors [2]. The only beneficiaries of these "cross-license agreements" are the mega-corporations involved, _not_ their customers, certainly not their competitors, and certainly not the general public. These three reasons alone explain why there is a petition online [1] where all US voters are invited to lobby against software patents. Fourth, there is a geostrategic twist to this. Europe does not have software patents, but the US and Japan do. American mega-corporations are lobbying the European Parliament to pass a law that permits software patents [3]. The European software industry is much smaller than that in the US, and consists mainly of SMEs. If the EP adopts software patents, then these SMEs will become easy targets for the US mega-corporations, as per (a). More importantly, it may well be possible for European governments, armies, and utilities to get sued over use of patented cryptographic or other algorithms. I dare not go further into this reasoning, as the consequences could be catastrophic. [1] http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html [2] http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/enterprise/story/0,2000048640,20272597,00.h tm [3] http://swpat.ffii.org/events/2003/europarl/07/ -- Ludovic Brenta.