Re: Gregnews: US report proves EP lies

* PILCH Hartmut <[email protected]>, le 13-07-05, a =E9crit:
> Gregnews now finds it necessary to quote every report that uses the
> term "information technology" as a proof that software is a "field
> of technology" in the TRIPs sense and must be patented.  The following
> one rants against "lies" of the European Parliament, based on the sole
> "evidence" that a new US report mentions the word "information technolo=
gy",
> if I understand correctly.


I just checked Google

7,190 answers for sexual-technology.

That should open new vistas for the GregBot


The nice thing about the Bot is its ability to select exclusively
irrelevant arguments.

It pretends to be talking like a scientist one day, and then will
combine this with a reference to TRIPS which is essentially
ideological bullshit, produced by legal ideologists.

But, the problem of the GregBot is that it does not understand law.
Something is not legally a field of technology because it can be
demonstrated to be one, but because it is legally defined to be one.

For example, some laws will consider pigeons as real property (like a
house, or "bien immeuble" in French), despite the fact that it can
move and fly away.  Legally, things are just what the law says they
are.

Law will create categories and then decide what fits these categories
according to the goals it wishes to attain and the procedures it
wishes to enforce.

Trying to demonstrate that software is a field of technology is on the
same order of stupidity as trying to demonstrate that copyright should
not apply to software because it is not artistic (a judgement which I
dispute, but that belongs to another discussion).  Copyright is just a
tool to be applied to whatever the lawmakers see fit.


Similarly, the Bot selected the paper "A Technical Critique of Fifty
Software Patents" by MARTIN CAMPBELL-KELLY and PATRICK VALDURIEZ.
   http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=3D650921

I have not had yet the time to read it carefully, but I am sure it is
serious work, because I happen to know one of the authors and he is a
good scientist.  Actually, they carefully delimit the nature and
relevance of their work.  And given the procedure they followed, the
results are hardly surprising.

The problem is that this paper is essentially irrelevant to the issue
of patenting, for many reasons.  We do not patent mathematics, but I
am sure we could select some classical mathematical papers and make a
study on their contribution, the originality of the techniques used in
proofs, etc. and decide they could qualify for patenting proof
technology.  Apparenlty no one is asking to patent mathematics (yet).

The question is: will patenting software help innovation and a better
economy (I am trying to avoid the term "economic growth", which can be
poorly interpreted).  This has not been demonstrated.  And there are
other issues besides economic efficiency: cultural, social and
political.

One thing is obvious for example : intangible goods have an economic
caracteristic which is their zero marginal cost (they are non rival).
Patents are usually licenced on a per unit cost.  Hence, if intangible
goods include patented parts, they lose this essential property of
zero marginal cost.  But this property determines possible economic
and innovation models, and some are no longer possible without it.  A
good question one should ask is whether that is something good or bad
for innovation and economy, and whether we know enough about these
models to make a decision that is not premature.  It is obviously not
the only question.


Of course, that requires imagination and original thinking, rather
than mechanical application of old rules without questionning whether
they still apply.  To much to ask from a WebBot.  The Turing test
fails again.

Bernard

--=20
             Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
               Software patents threaten your company
    Soutenez la Majorit=E9 =C9conomique - Support the Economic Majority
                  http://www.economic-majority.com/

[email protected]             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion