[SC.LUG] Patents [was RE: America]

[David Holden]

On Friday 22 Aug 2003 11:06 am, Richard Smedley wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-08-20 at 15:36, Matthew Tolley wrote:
> > Historically, people patent something, THEN make money from their
> > invention - a really great example being Microsoft. DOS was patented when
> > Bill Gates et al had no money, so I don't see how you can claim patents
> > are only produced by people with money.
>
> DOS wasn't patented by MS after they bought
> it (and they did have enough credit to buy
> it outright). Like all software it is protected
> by copyright, and with this protection it was
> licensed to IBM for their shiny new PC.
>
> Incidentally, MS hold a number of patents,
> but use them mostly for defensive purposes.
> It is only in the very recent past that they
> have started using them to suppport their
> monopoly position.
>
> > It's thanks to patents that we have
> > electricity (courtesy of Thomas Edison, who was broke at the time). I'll
> > check out the links but I'm deeply unconvinced so far.
>
> Regardless of the rights and wrongs of patents as
> applied to inventions in the traditional sphere
> of the physical world, software resides in a
> separate category.
>
> Software is immensely complex - it is possible
> for one programmer to generate a million lines
> of code for a program. This code will cover
> /hundreds/ of algorithms, most (or all) of
> which are obvious in some way.
>
> If each algorith is patented, the software cannot
> be produced, regardless of how innovative the
> /implementation/ of the algorithms is in the
> new program. Only companies the size of IBM
> - who hold thousands of software patents in the US
> and Japan - have the muscle to force other patent
> holders into cross-licensing deals (worth
> /billions/ of dollars each year to IBM). Small
> companies and individuals stand no chance.
>
> Software (FLOSS or proprietary) is more than
> adequately protected by copyright - applied
> over virtually the whole world, under the
> Berne convention. Patents for software have
> no advantage, and will have a disastrous
> effect on software development in Europe.
>
> :-(
>
> Has anyone had any joy in communicating
> with their MEP on this?
>
>  - Richard


Yes,


I and two work colleagues sent one to our MEP (Brian Simpson, Labour)

my reply was a almost word for word copy of a reply that fellow labour MEP 
Arlen McCarthy (and main sponsor of the proposed directive) sent to someone 
in her constituency. You can see it here

http://mailman.xenoclast.org/pipermail/free-sklyarov-uk/2003-July/005132.html.


It seems that Labour MEPs can't think for themselves and are taking to sending 
out "form letters".


A deconstruction of this letter can be found at

http://www.ffii.org.uk/labourDeconstruction.html

It really is a disgrace.



I suggest anyone in McCarthy's catchment area (manchester for instance) get 
make themselves heard, the vote is on 1 september.

    Dave.







For those interested in a deconstruction of the "Form letter" Labour MEP's are 
sending out about software patents see:

http://www.ffii.org.uk/labourDeconstruction.html

 Dave.


-- 
Dr. David Holden. (Systems Developer)

Visit: Crystallography Journals Online <http://journals.iucr.org>

Thanks in advance:-
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See: <http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>

UK Privacy (R.I.P)  : http://www.stand.org.uk/commentary.php3
Public GPG key available on request.
-------------------------------------------------------------