On Thu, Aug 28, 2003 at 02:44:08AM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> Personally, I believe that some form of IPR protection is morally right, no 
> matter what the field of endeavour.  Unfortunately, no-one seems to have 
> invented a creditable form of IPR protection which would seem fair in the 
> computing world.

You have IP in the form of copyright and licensing. If you don't want others
to know your algorithm, license it and don't disclose it. If they happen to
find a similar algorithm doing the same thing due to their own research, they
should be able to use it anyway.

IP protection is to _protect_ the _investements_ you've made so that other
companies/people don't use your _inventions_ without having to go through the
same timeline (idea, research, development, simulation, testing, production).

With normal patents, this IP protection is settled. However, software patents
are much worse; they allow anyone to protect an idea, a general/generic look
and feel of any algorithm. You prohibit others to even think about
implementing something like your invention, even though they will have to go
through the same cycle (irdstp). This is not IP protection, this is creating
a monopoly.
 
> Let's say that HP *did* actually invent remote access to another computer.  
> (Two disclaimers: first, I've worked for HP in the past, and second I have no 
> idea whether the patent in question is creditable or not)  Why shouldn't they 
> be entitled to protect their IPR, and to earn revenue from it?  Never mind 
> the details, it's a simple yes or no question of morals.

No, since remote access is a concept. Their implementation can and should be
protected (dunno how it's called with HP), but they shouldn't stop others to
develope a remote access implementation different of their own.

If I would have invented a way to predict register values before an algorithm
has completed, I can implement this in a compiler to produce faster code. To
protect my IP, I should protect my implementation. However, if I patented the
concept of value-prediction, I make sure that no-one can ever develop
something similar (or even better).

This is completely against the spirit of patents. Patents should promote
research and development by giving the inventor a means to protect its
investements. 

Even more, if _you_ develop software, do you check all existing patents to be
sure that your software doesn't cross one of them? I'm sure that you don't.

John Gage, the Chief Researcher and Director of the Science Office of Sun
Microsystems, had a nice talk on the ONEday conference in Genval, Belgium on
the 30th of July in which he described his PoV on software patents. One of
they key items in his speach was that most _real_ software inventions
(protocols, internet, ...) were inventions of students or people that have
just graduated, people that don't think about patents. These inventions have
changed the ICT-world (TCP/IP, WWW, ...).

> Protection for IPR itself isn't a bad concept.  It's been a key part of the 
> commerce-based way of life in the West since before 1449 AD.  Stopping the 
> current software process patenting nonsense is good and worthy.  But the need 
> *is* there, as well as the moral right, and this is where campaigners such as 
> yourself always fail to convince me.

Patents are for real, physic inventions, where copyrights don't exist (and
licensing only in a lesser extend). Software has both of them, and both of
them are powerfull enough.
 
Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Perfect.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project