From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:16:16 GMT

In article <id.0QYT.Y03@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>But I *want* to make my code available for anyone to use and improve on,
>and even to profit from. Even if *I* don't profit. I've published software
>with this explicit goal, and in at least one case I've seen it or the ideas
>in it incorporated in a commercial program.

I fear Peter isn't listening. He CAN make his code available to
anyone.  That's  one of the benefits.  It is certainly no worse than
today. Today, if I use some of Peter's code, I might be sued by AT&T because
they might claim that Peter's code was derived from their trade secret
protected code (doesn't require copyright, or patent).  They might be
wrong. Peter might never have seen any such code.  But that wouldn't
matter. AT&T can still bring suit, and I would have to defend and
prove to a reasonable man that I hadn't accepted stolen intellectual
property. On the other hand, under the clearinghouse model if both
AT&T and I were members AT&T can't sue me. So my risk is lower than
with the current system. Fewer lawyers are likely to be involved. AT&T
would be willing to do this to collect more royalties as a lower cost
of licensing. An individual not involved in a profit generation
probably wouldn't pay anything. Profit making company's would pay more
but benefit from getting more licensed technology at a lower cost.

>Why do I do this? Because I can, because I can afford to. If you had to vet
>everyone who wanted to use a program it would completely and utterly destroy
>the free software community. And I consider this unacceptable, unless you
>can provide a countervailing benefit that will balance this immense loss of
>innovation and creativity.

I don't understand this argument because he CAN distribute it just as
freely as under GNU.

>Yes, it's worse, because you don't have the choice of not taking part. GNU
>exists, but I can still distribute *my* code without worrying about it.

Sure you can.  If you choose to not be a member you face the same
risks you face today, no more and no less.  If you are a member your
are safe from an intellectual property suit from other members.  The
choice is up to you. Even if there are no patents, nonmembers risk
copyright and trade secret suits from members and nonmembers alike.
With a clearinghouse at least some suits would be not be possible.

> If every use of an algorithm is covered by the patent, how does
>that differ from a patent on the algorithm?

I see your point, but then such an algorithm is pretty specialized.
The same thing could be true of the DvsD "algorithm".  It is probably
pretty likely to be good for making rubber, but not generally useful
for making jello, or glass.  Someone using is not likely to be working
on one of these others and accidentally re-invent it.  But they might
re-invent it if they were working on rubber making.  In that case it
might benefit them to check out rubber-making patents--but they
needn't check out the jello and glass making patents.

Similarly for LZW and RSA. If you claim that the only uses possible
are in compression and encryption, then only people working in those
areas need to search for them, and they should have no problem finding
out about them.  I was addressing the fear that because an algorithm
was part of a patented process in one area that it would somehow put
at risk people who reinvent that algorithm to solve an entirely different
problem (one so different that they wouldn't turn up the patent in a
quick and easy search).  I claim it wouldn't because patents only
cover the claimed areas of application. 


-- 

Scott L. McGregor		mcgregor@netcom.com
President			tel: 408-985-1824
Prescient Software, Inc.	fax: 408-985-1936
3494 Yuba Avenue
San Jose, CA 95117-2967



Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal,tor.general