Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 00:41:18 +0200 (CEST) From: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> Cc: Salvo Bartolotta <bartequi@neomedia.it>, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, "P. U. (Uli) Kruppa" <root@pukruppa.de>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Use of the UNIX Trademark Message-ID: <1002753678.3bc4ce8e10a73@webmail.neomedia.it> In-Reply-To: <20011010140126.M387@blossom.cjclark.org> References: <000601c15084$87edd360$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> <1002663600.3bc36eb096ee5@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011009231343.C387@blossom.cjclark.org> <1002731960.3bc479b899603@webmail.neomedia.it> <20011010140126.M387@blossom.cjclark.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> wrote: Many thanks for your kind reply, which casts light on some aspects of patenting. > Let me preface with IANAL. > > On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 06:39:20PM +0200, Salvo Bartolotta wrote: > > "Crist J. Clark" <cristjc@earthlink.net> wrote: > > [snip] > > > <joking> > > The things mentioned above were new when they were discovered. What > if people > > had "patented" the [more or less trivial] algorithms mentioned the > very same > > day they were created? :-) > > </joking> > > Solving second degree polynomials was not trivial when it was > discovered. Patent protection is a rather recent invention realtive to > mathematics. We tend to think of science being a field where everyone > is just looking for a chance to share all of their thoughts with > everyone else. That's the ideal. This is not how it always worked nor > how it has ever worked. Great mathematicians (e.g. Newton) closely > guarded their discoveries and methods from the rest of the world until > _they_ were ready to release it. You couldn't use Newton's discoveries Maybe because they wanted to make sure that they would get all the credit for their discoveries. :-) > for quite a while after he discovered them since he didn't let them > out right away. Knowing Newton's personality, he might have applied > for patents if could have. Newton hadn't a nice personality, actually. :-)) > > Or, to shift the origin of the time axis, what if people patented each > and > > every new mathematical/informatics/routing/whatever theorem and/or > algorithm? > > There are many motives for patenting or not patenting. There is no > point in patenting something that you don't think will ever recover > more in license money than it costs to register and maintain the > patent. Most discoveries fall into that category. When speaking of > "routing," a lot of companies spend lots of money developing > technologies and then give away the knowledge in the form of an open > standard and an RFC. In that case, it is in their interest for as many > people to adopt the standard as possible. For someone like a Cisco, > they can spend money on this with no patent return since they plan to > make money off of the hardware and support. Although it is perfectly > reasonable for them to sometimes patent this kind of work if > interoperaility with other products is not something they are after. > > > Should/would you have to pay each and every time a theoretical > paper/book of > > yours made [auxiliary] use of a patented theorem/algorithm? > > No. Just explaining how a patented process works is not using the > patented process to produce something. For example, back when RSA was > still patented, it was perfectly legal for me to put the algorithm in > a book and sell it. Could you make *money* out of it without paying *anything* to RSA folks? > > And/or each and > > every time a program of yours made use of the patented algorithm(s)? > > But I could not put a CDROM in my book with a working version of the > code without licensing the technology. > > > How long > > [reasonably] for? > > Patents have always had expirations. There are very good arguments > that patents for algorithms should have short lifespans realtive to > the current laws. > > > What impact would this have on the development of _new_ works and/or > [better] > > programs in the field (or even in other fields)? > > It depends on the field. Allowing patents can cause a field to > boom. If people believe they can make money off of a technology and > that they will have patent protection for their discoveries, they may > invest great amounts of money and resources into the field. I won't add to Rahul's comment on medicine here. A number of people did a lot of work in *difficult* conditions for reasons which had little to do with money. But I WILL add one comment on another field. Albert Einstein was a clerk in a patent (!!) office when he released his Theory of Relativity. :-))) > > Incidentally, AFAIK, the development of Mathematics, Logic, > Informatics, > > Science at large has occurred fast and furious without patents for the > last > > few centuries[1]. Freedom of development has been (and is) of primal > > importance. It is for **this** reason that you are in a position to > develop > > your new nifty ideas _today_. > > As I mentioned at the top, it may not be as free as open as you > think. credit != money I am aware that today a lot of people (far too many) are seeking money (and only money) desperately. :-) > If anyone had patented ideas, it wouldn't matter today anyways > since the patents would have long ago expired. Anyways, patents _do_ > allow information to be "free." If you have a patented device or > process you can feel free to share information about how it works, how > you discovered it, etc. and not need to worry about people stealing > your investment. The alternative is people trying to keep all of their > work completely secret to avoid letting other people hear of it and > copy it. Thanks for these paragraphs, which cast light on some obscure (to me) aspects. > [snip] > > > Theorem/algorithm T/Ai (the ith theorem and the associated algorithm, > if any) > > is a scientific achievement, for i=1,2,...,N. As such, these theorems > must > > figure in the appropriate book(s). They constitute knowledge and as > such they > > must be shared. Not sharing knowledge is a dangerous form of > obscurantism. > > And YES, it should be a national[2] interest to finance researchers > rather > > then make them attempt to *patent* *knowledge*... > > They "must be" shared with the world. Hmmm... Again, it is and never > really has been this way. Take one of the most interesting scientific > and engineering efforts of the century, the Manhattan Project. That > research took place amongst a _very_ small but able scientific > community sequestered in the desert. It was quite a while for that to > be shared with the world at large; we all know why. Same story for the > hydrogen bomb or any other technology developments placed under the > cover of national security. The idea that all information "needs to be > free" is a rather naive one. I would say yes. And no. Essentially because Science != technology. Nuclear reactions (fission & fusion) are described in many Physics books. _Understanding_ or _knowing_ Science does NOT necessarily imply eg having the technology to produce a fission or H bomb. Plutonium (and other) technologies, yes, those (hopefully) should be kept secret. Here I am afraid I have to agree. :-) > > It is about this point that I disagree. In general, IMO Science > should be > > patent-free. > > That's just not a reasonable view of how the world works. For example, > the entire field of medicine would come to an almost complete > standstill without patents. HUGE amounts of money are spent developing > drugs and devices to be patented. Again, drug companies and other Science != technology. Let's label the knowledge of the mechanisms of how our body works as "science". If you are able to produce a medicine X from that knowledge, you can patent it. If another person produces another medicine from the same laws in the same field, eg a new better medicine, he or she can patent it. This is a very delicate matter, though (cf eg South Africa). Others have and will comment on this. The central point remains: I strongly disagree on patenting _knowledge_. > > Next, what would prevent all fields of Mathematics from becoming a set > of > > patents? Would you imagine Functional Analysis (cf Quantum Mechanics) > to be a > > collection of patents? You are most probably aware that Q.M. will have > a > > number of consequences for C.S. and computers at large. > > Again, you cannot patent information. A process you patent can then be > freely shared with the world. You really only need to worry about > getting a license for a patented algorithm if you are selling the > algorithm or using it yourself and selling the products of it. Hmm <example> You would NOT be allowed to apply a F.A.-related theorem/algorithm in any computer program evaluating eg Q.M. quantities (say, relating to a given Q.C.S. device) without paying [$$$]$$$, because the theorem & related numerical method is patented. That sounds like trouble (to me). I don't thinks this helps research. > > There has to be a better form of protection, both of the programmer's > work as > > a form of art and of the programmer's work as science (well, when it > is the > > case :-)), a form of protection avoiding obscurantism. IMO, FWIW, > patenting > > algorithms is a dangerous way. > > But you agree there needs to be protection. If you have a better way, > offer it up. I don't think that the patent system is perfect or that > it is not frequently abused[0]. I do believe patents are the best fit > we have right now for protecting the IP inherent in computer programs. > > [0] There are some beauties in the computer and Internet industries > beside's Amazon, Open Market (5,715,314) owns electronic shopping > carts, Priceline.com (5,794,207) owns patents on buyer-driven sales > (and has sued M$ and Expedia, I hate to have to cheer for M$, but...), > and Sightsound.com (5,191,573) owns music downloads (has sued Time > Warner and CDNow, they demand 1% royalties on _all_ online music > sellers). > -- Yep, better protection. For example, in order to prevent some of the curious examples you quoted from ever coming into being; and to prevent monsters like M$ from ever applying its ineffable practices. -- Salvo To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1002753678.3bc4ce8e10a73>