Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Dec 1998 18:27:53 -0500 | From | David Feuer <> | Subject | Re: GPL and s/w patents [was Re: Article: IBM wants to ...] |
| |
Jim Freeman wrote:
snip snip
> Part of rms's ingenious foresight was to recognize a long time ago that > sovereignty (for both s/w and its users) requires both the GPL *and* > the discouragement of s/w patents - thus the LPF et al. The growing > tidal wave of (trivial?) s/w patents (and the USPTO's complicity in > 1) patentng s/w at all (anathema before the mid-80's [algorithms vs. > processes] and to 2) patenting the most trite [ie: non-inventive, > obvious] of programming methods) encumbers otherwise sovereign > software every bit as onerously as proprietary copyrights ever will. > > http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/ > > U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8: > The Congress shall have Power .. To promote the Progress of Science > and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and > Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and > Discovereies; > > [ Apologies for US-isms - the foundations and motivations for such > laws are probably similar in other countries. ] >
I started thinking about the essential differences between software/algorithms and hardware for patent purposes. Here is my thought:
Mass production of physical devices (hardware) is very expensive. The equipment involved may cost millions or billions of dollars. Most independent inventors and small companies have too little capital to mass-produce a device. Patents were created, in part, to allow these inventors+companies to profit from their inventions anyway. They can patent the invention, then license it to a large manufacturer with the necessary equipment. If nobody wants to license, they can try manufacturing it themselves. If patents did not exist, then a small company's inventions would immediately be grabbed by large corporations capable of profiting from them.
The situation is different with software. If I come up with a new algorithm, I am as capable as any other to produce and distribute software based on that algorithm. The big companies have less inherent advantage (advertising still plays a role.....). Also, a new algorithm might lead to hundreds of different new products. Thus, the restrictions imposed on a patented algorithm serve little purpose, and squash innovation.
-- David Feuer feuer@his.com dfeuer@binx.mbhs.edu Open Source: Think locally; act globally.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |