From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Letter asking for help with Apple from the US VP
Followup-To: misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Reply-To: terry@icarus.weber.edu
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 92 17:35:11 GMT

	I have abstained (well, for the most part, OK?) from involving
myself in the patent arguments in comp.unix.bsd.  I haven't really objected
to their presence (until now) because their tangential relationship, by way
of the AT&T suit and the overall concept of intellectual property and how
it may or may notA effect the outcome of the suit.  This is because I believe
the suit will have an impact on most of the groups in the newsgroups line
(although how "comp.sys.mac.advocacy" is involved is a new one on me).

My problem no is that it has devolved into what appears to be intentional
misinterpretation on both sides.  I definitely respect Robert, and do not
know John except from his postings on this issue, so this isn't personal
detritius on my part.


RW ::= Robert Withrow
JR ::= John Reinitz

JR> Since it's so simple, perhaps you'd volunteer to do the patent search
JR> for us? If you won't volunteer, why not?

	By which John implies that "simple" is equal to "accomplished
	quickly".  This fallacy is what I believe Robert is addressing.
	Having personally "searched" several patents over the years, I
	can assure you that the procedure is indeed simple; however, it
	is also time consuming.  At the time I did not have  significant
	"opportunity costs".  Robert's "opportunity costs" are relatively
	large.

RW> I'd be glad to volunteer, in consideration for the appropriate fee (i.e.,
RW> my normal consulting rate, plus expenses).  Time is money... ;-)
	
	An "opportunity cost" is what Robert is addressing here.  To explain
	this simply, it costs you the difference between the most money
	you could make with the time minus the money you actually make in
	the time, to spend time doing something.  For Robert, it would be
	his normal consulting rate if no expenses are incurred.

JR> Thank you, Mr. Withrow, *your* interests in this matter are
JR> becoming clearer.

	I took this to be John questioning Robert's intent in arguing
	the issue, since Robert appeared to be stating that he did
	consulting of patent searches.  The problem here is in the
	inaccuracy of the term "consultant" in general and as applied
	here to Robert in particular.  It doesn't tell what the topic
	of his services are.  From my experiences working with him, it
	isn't patent searches.

RW>You mean to say that because I know how to research patents I am required
RW>to do so for every Joe who comes along, gratis?  And my unwillingness
RW>to do so is a sign of some sort of character flaw?

JR>Not in the least. You are rationally acting in your own interest, and I 
JR>have no objection to that. Indeed, if my phrasing was too sharp,  
JR>please excuse me for seeming to impugn your character. 

	Which still leaves the question of avaraice on Robert's part
	with respect to his [presumed] self-interest in the patent
	process; in effect, this is still a statement about Robert's
	character.  This is borne out in the following statement:

JR>Since this discussion is [in part] about whether certain aspects of 
JR>patent law benefit *society*, I was impugning your *credibility* on
JR>that subject. Mr. Bernstein has shown how patent law has kept innovations 
JR>out of the hands of the public. Mr. Shein and others have noted
JR>that determining the presence of patentable ideas in a large piece
JR>of code is intellectually nontrivial, and requires the employment
JR>of specialists. You appear to be one such, and hence I speculate
JR>that certain aspects of patent law are harmful to society in general 
JR>and beneficial to you personally.



	I believe that we have all read Article I Section 8 of the US
	Constitution, either from the constitution itself, or as it
	has been partially quoted here.  I don't think there is any
	question that patent and copyright law are the governements
	exercise of these rights.  Even I.8, however, recognizes that
	individuals operate from a basis of self interest; it goes so
	far as to say the government should take advantage of this to
	benefit society as a whole... it does *not* say that individual
	interests should be morally required to be subservient to those
	of society.  You can't legislate morals; if you could there
	would be no need for penalties for criminal activities as a
	deterrent... people would be "moral" simply because tof the law,
	not the penalty, if this were true.

	Patent law is the embodiment of Article I Section 8.  Patent
	protection is not an extension of individual property rights;
	it is a means of granting a priviledge that the governement has
	reserved itself the right to grant.  This is done *in exchange*
	for the individual ceding the rights to his discovery to the
	society as a whole.  The individual thus *purchases* a short
	term monopoly from the government in exchange for *selling*
	his property rights.  The government is assumed to operate in
	the best interests of society.


	The question of whether software is patentable is moot; as long
	a process patents are allowable, software which operates on data
	will be allowable.  The error lies in the confusion of the data
	operated on by the software with the software itself by non
	computer professionals, and the question of whether this falls
	into the category of a mathematical operation or a process
	operation, by virtue of data being analogous to the materials
	operated upon by a physical process.  That computer science has
	adopted the word "process" to mean an instance of a program
	being executed is beside the point.  This is not the "process"
	in question... the better term is "algorithm".

	Go back to arguing the validity of the analogy between materials
	and data in physical vs. algorithmic procedures, and classification
	of algorithms as not being mathematical formula if you every want
	to arrive at a conclusion.  This is the legal justification for
	patents on software.

	Followups are directed to "misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi".


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd