From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
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: 6 Oct 1992 09:07:00 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1992Oct6.075245.19311@netcom.com> mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
>In article <1aq5jlINNm5v@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>> Thus, every software developer is
>>in the position of having to deal with licensing issues.
>
>Not really, only every software distributor. And in any cases less
>onerous licensing mechanisms such as clearinghouses are possible.

Patents give the inventor a monopoly on making, using and selling his
invention.  A software developer makes all the software devices in his
program, so he is subject to patent issues.

And in many cases (e.g. free network distribution), the software developer
is the distributor.

>>But in software it's practical, and extremely common, to manufacture your
>>own "nuts and bolts".  There's no need to encourage an industry that
>>manufactures objects at this level.  It's easier to write a factorial
>>subroutine than it is to look it up in a catalog and purchase it.  In
>>software, if you can think it you can do it;
>
>From a societal standpoint there is a reasonable question to raise
>about whether is really desirable from the respect of industry
>maturity  that so many people DO remanufacture there own base objects
>which not only require the re-invention time, but testing, etc.  Some
>have made arguments about societal value to be had from encouraging
>more re-use of higher granularity objects.  This is probably more
>appropriately discussed in comp.object or comp.software-eng where such
>adherents may be found. Some might think patents beneficial in
>preserving society's resources if they
>lead to more re-use and less re-manufacture and re-invention.

I'm aware of the issues of software reuse, software ICs, etc.  This is why
I made the distinction in my post between simple "nuts and bolts" level
devices and larger components such as specialized libraries, fancy widget
sets, etc.  I'm not sure precisely where the line should be drawn, but I
think that it should be high enough that copyright and trade secret
protection would be adequate.

>>The stated purpose of patents is to encourage inventors to publish things
>>that would otherwise remain secret (presumably depriving other inventors of
>>the ability to license or build upon thme).
>
>Not just this but to encourage their commericalization. An award for
>published inventions might be sufficient to encourage their
>publication without commercialization, but the value of a limited
>monopoly can only be reaped by commericalizing.

Commercialization isn't the purpose, it's the mechanism.  The purpose of
patents in the US (as stated in the Constitution) is to encourage invention
(by which they meant the publication of inventions as well), and the means
is to make it easier for inventors to commercialize what they publish.

In another post you brought up the fact that some investors wouldn't put
money into hypertext because Ted Nelson's publication made it impossible to
patent the technology.  Ted Nelson wasn't interested in patenting
hypertext, yet he invented it and published it anyway.  Seems to me that
the goal was reached without using the mechanism.  You weren't able to
commercialize hypertext, but you weren't the inventor so the patent issue
doesn't apply to the problem you had.  In fact, had Nelson patented the
technology you might not have been able to commercialize it, either (it
depends on whether you could afford his license fees).
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk