From: mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 13 Oct 92 05:56:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <id.6S0U.TRE@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:

>They haven't just harmed individuals. For example, the Pike patent prevents
>people from building a window system that uses backing store in a certain
>way -- which happens to be the obvious and most effective way. This harms
>everyone who uses a computer system running a window system, since it forces
>them to use about twice as much RAM or a much faster CPU.

No, the Pike patent only requires them to license the patent from AT&T
or risk a suit. My understanding is that it is in their 2% royalty licensing
category.  If anyone knows differently, please tell us. A 2% royalty
is very cheap as royalties go. Most all AT&T patents are licensable for
royalties varying from 1% to 5%. By the way, the Pike patent addresses
window systems with "displays" and physical "memory". This is the kind
of patent that might easily appear to a jury to be a physical process
patent and not a "pure software" patent.

>The LPF advocates eliminating all software patents because they have found
>a number of demonstrably harmful ones and no evidence whatsoever that the
>mass might be beneficial. In fact, the best evidence is that there is no
>observable benefit to patents on purely software systems.

LPF dismisses the possibility that patents may have contributed to the
successful capitalization of software firms, with no evidence that
they weren't a factor.  There is a statistical correlation between the
increasing number of patents received by software development firms
and the total growth of the capitalization of the software industry,
and of its revenues and contribution to the GNP. Admittedly, this
isn't causal evidence, but no ironclad counter argument has been put
forth either.  So it remains a matter of opinion. 

>> I've attempted to give plausable examples.
>
>But you haven't given a single real example. The opposing side has given many.

I guess it comes down to what you mean by "real". I think that Robert
Withrow is correct, that no patent, even non software patents, can
meet the standard of proof being asked for. I think the best evidence
has to do with raising capital, but that doesn't seem to meet Peter's
requirements for "real" because they aren't laboratory cases in which
other issues such as copyrights, trade secrets, etc. could be factors.
But "real" life business situations rarely have such laboratory
clarity.  At the same time, the opposing side's cases are also
contaminated with other issues of copyright, trade-secrets, and even
fiscal management ability, but they ignore these complications, and
claim that it is only patents that caused these problems. They
extrapolate that because a patent grants a limited monopoly to
conclude that it prevents everyone from using it, when in fact it
might be and often is cheaply licensable.

-- 

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