From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Patents:  What they are.  What they aren't.  Other factors.
Date: 3 Oct 92 10:06:09
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
Distribution: usa
	<RLK.92Oct2103042@underprize.think.com>
	<1992Oct3.070637.26597@netcom.com> <1992Oct3.092317.2925@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: mcgregor@netcom.com's message of 3 Oct 92 09:23:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.092317.2925@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:

   In article <RLK.92Oct2103042@underprize.think.com> rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) writes:
   >I'm curious:  how much experience do you have actually writing software?
   >The reason that I ask this is because your arguments don't square very
   >well with programming practice as I'm familiar with it (I'm a software
   >engineer with 5 years experience and other assorted experience).

etc.  You didn't say anything about what sorts of programming projects
you've worked on in a technical capacity, but it sounds like most of
your recent experience has been on large projects rather than smaller
onex.

I have no experience managing software businesses, negotiating licenses,
etc.  I'll freely admit that my experience has been in writing and using
software.

   >How does this help the individual who doesn't have $10K revenue/month,
   >who just wants to write a program and GIVE it away? 

   If clearing house fees are based upon sales revenue, and you give it
   away, your revenue is zero. Hence your fees are zero. At the same time,
   if the individual were to bother to patent it and give it to the
   clearing house he would get some revenues coming in. It is up to him.
   Or if the individual didn't want to use the clearing house for some
   non-financial reason they can take their chances with the courts (but
   as I said above in my personal opinion I think that their personal
   risk is small personal opinion, because the patent holder wouldn't be
   able to collect much in damages from them--but if you want to be safe,
   go with the clearinghouse).

Once again, I don't believe that Lotus would be particularly happy with
the FSF using its (Lotus's) spreadsheet patent to cut into Lotus's
sales, even if the FSF were to realize zero revenue.  Rather than trying
to extract damages, Lotus would simply try to put the FSF out of
business.  That way they wouldn't have to worry about competition.  Same
way that non-profit radio stations still have to pay royalties.

   > How does this help the Free Software Foundation, or anyone else who
   > isn't interested in maximizing revenue?  

   I'm not sure that it "helps" the Free Software Foundation, but I don't
   think that "helping" an arbitrary  non-profit organization needs to
   be an explicit goal of an industry clearinghouse, our industry or the
   public at large..  I think that the only real goals a clearinghouse
   needs are to  reduce patent suit risks, simplify licensing, and
   provide a fair reward to inventors who share their inventions with the
   clearinghouse (and through it to the industry and public at large).   

Well, I don't see why for-profit organizations should receive help over
non-profit organizations.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi