Subject: RE: [hackers-il] Philosophy: Fair IP laws

From: "Ofir Carny" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 10:27:10 +0200

I don't think that is the problem, I think the problem is that a lot of 
patents get granted where they shouldn't be. One click buy is not 
non-obvious nor is it original, and so are most software patents.

Unless a genious insight or considerable research get into a patent, it is
by definition obvious, and thus shouldn't get granted.

Where a patent is worthy, there is not too much of a problem, companies can
license, sub-license and create regional licensing partnerships, and even
get the temporary monopol a patent grants. And that is fair, because they contributed
something substancial to society.

The two problems that remain are patents whose research was derived from public funds,
and patents incorperated into standards. These should be avoided.

-----Original Message-----
From: Omer Zak [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:59 PM
To: Hackers-IL
Subject: RE: [hackers-il] Philosophy: Fair IP laws

On Fri, 10 May 2002, Ofir Carny wrote:

> Patent - the original rules were sufficient - only usefull, original,
> and non-obvious - and I would add beneficial to society - almost no
> software and absulutly no buissness patents fit there.

Patent laws worked reasonably well when artifacts could be created
utilizing only one or two patents.
But when several patents go into a single artifact, there has always been
the need to circumvent the original intent of patents by formation of
patent pools.  This happened in the aviation industry (a single airplane
embodies several patents).

Even this doesn't work for software industry, because contrary to airplane
manufacturers, software can be and is written also by very small
operations, which don't have the resources to search for, and negotiate,
patent licenses.  And it is often difficult to find what patents are used
by a particular software package.

I don't see an obvious solution to the problem of creating goods, which
embody several patents.  This is like having a property (such as
apartment) which is jointly owned by 50 people, each one having his own
agenda, beliefs, desires and opinions about the best way to manage it.
                                             --- Omer
The Deaf in Israel demand 100% captioning of Hebrew language TV and CATV
programs.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email-masked]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

*
 *******************************************************
This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

********************************************************

---

From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email-masked]>
Date: 13 May 2002 11:09:36 +0300

> by definition obvious, and thus shouldn't get granted.

This is not true. The problem here is that what hackers (or even most
people) call 'non-obvious'  has nothing to do with the legal definition
of that term. It is like a physics major and a biology major trying to
discuss about 'vector'. They use the same word but are talking about
something completly different.

The legal definition of 'non-obvious' for this matter is: can be done in
more then one way. So, if you have invented a method for an autmated
device for kicking your own butt by pulling a lever using a piece of
wood, some strings and an old show and can demonstrate that there is
more then one way to build such a device (for example: have the lever
suspended above you or below you) then assuming no prior art exists you
can be granted a patent for this device and in fact such a patent WAS
granted for someone in the US (don't ask...)

Note that any of us that will hear of this patent will claim that such
an invention is obvious, but we are not talking about the same 'obvious'
here.

> something substancial to society.

For the record, most companies in the software/hardware industry
maintain patents for the double purpose of impressing investors and have
a legal weapon aginst another companu when it sues her for patent
infrigment: most these law suits are settled out of course by patent
cross licensing deals. There are exceptions, and most of them are 3
lawyers in an office which make ALL of their money by buying patents and
suing for them - a cleat abuse of the patent system, if you ask me.

I think patents and other so called intelluctual property rights are not
evil in themselves. I do think that there should be a finite, defined
and SHORT time limit on these rights (and not extend it every coupkle of
years ad infinitum) and I also think that certain restrictions ought to
be put in place on right holders. For example, having the rights expire
automatically if the holder have effectivly bared use altogether of the
governed work etc.

The other major problem is that the legal system have been completly
bought out byu big money and that the judicial system is is way to under
informed to current day technology to make reasonable jugment on these
matters, but this is a different problem al together.

Gilad.
-- 
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email-masked]>
Code mangler, senior coffee drinker and VP SIGSEGV
Qlusters ltd.

"To err is human. To realy fsck up you need a computer. For
 those really large scale disastears, an SSI cluster is a must."