Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

[News] Patent Propaganda Refuted and Experts Preach Against Patents

  • Subject: [News] Patent Propaganda Refuted and Experts Preach Against Patents
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 00:11:37 +0100
  • Followup-to: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/4.3.1
Hash: SHA1

Interactive Graphic Pretends to Illustrate How U.S. Patent System Has Driven American Economy

,----[ Quote ]
| Some asked me if this proved patents do encourage 
| innovation. But of course it does not. This proves 
| absolutely nothing, in fact, except that there can still 
| be growth despite state intervention such as 
| intellectual monopoly grants. Correlation is not 
| causation. I hope Obama doesn't see this--I'm sure he 
| could whip up a similar chart correlating growth over 
| the last two centuries with, say, increasing taxes, 
| increasing federal spending, increasing federal 
| size/employment, increasing military size, increasing 
| efficiency at mass murder, and so on.


Patents and the Coase Theorem

,----[ Quote ]
| One of the most famous essays in economics is Ronald 
| Coaseâs âThe Problem of Social Cost.â Its key argument, 
| which was later dubbed the Coase Theorem by George 
| Stigler, says that in a world with zero transaction 
| costs, the initial allocation of rights doesnât matter 
| because people will negotiate toward an allocation of 
| rights that maximizes total social utility.
| Coase illustrates this principle with an example 
| involving a farmer and a rancher who occupy adjacent 
| parcels. The rancherâs cattle sometimes stray onto the 
| farmerâs land and damage his crops. Coaseâs claim is 
| that it doesnât matter whether the law holds the rancher 
| liable for the damage to the farmerâs crops or not: 
| either way, the rancher and farmer will reach a bargain 
| that maximizes the joint value of the rancher and 
| farmerâs output.



Once Again: Patents Do Not Equal Innovation

,----[ Quote ]
| The real reason for the decline in patenting may actually be buried at the
| bottom of the article: companies are realizing that patents aren't
| particularly cost effective, and they're cutting back, focusing on actual
| innovation rather than throwing money away on the patent system.


European Patent Office asks itself about software patents

,----[ Quote ]
| Sadly, the questions posed to the EBA are mined with typical EPO philosophy
| including their definitions of âtechnical effectâ, âfurther technical
| effectâ, âtechnical characterâ, âtechnical considerationsâ and other
| terminology they have used over the years. In that way they justified black
| being white, or more specifically the applicability of software patents (but,
| naturally, not âas suchâ).
| Seeing how the specific questions to the EBA are phrased (quite some traps in
| there), and what is not asked, it seems clear to me that any set of answers
| with just âyesâ or ânoâ is unable to speak against software patents in any
| meaningful way. Furthermore, if only one was to accept the premises of the
| questions, I submit that seemingly innocent arguments could be twisted in a
| number of ways to justify software patents. Nice job!


EPO seeks to validate software patents without the European Parliament

,----[ Quote ]
| At the highest level of the European Patent Office (EPO), the legality of
| software patents in Europe is about to be tested. The FFII warns that the
| European Parliament is being bypassed by allowing a decision with EU-wide
| implications to be made without its involvement or any real debate.
| The President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Alison Brimelow, has asked
| the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) to decide on the interpretation of the
| European Patent Convention (EPC) regarding the exclusion of software from
| patentability. The EBA is replacing the European Parliament in order to
| validate software patents EU-wide without the need of a debate.


Commission repeats call for single EU patent

,----[ Quote ]
| The European Commission has reiterated its demand for the creation of a
| single European patent. It said the absence of such a protection is hindering
| the growth of technology companies in the European Union.


Patents for software?

,----[ Quote ]
| The EPO does not grant patents for computer programs or computer-implemented
| business methods that make no technical contribution. Programs for computers
| as such are excluded from patentability by virtue of Art. 52(2)(c) and (3)
| EPC. According to this patent law, a program for a computer is not patentable
| if it does not have the potential to cause a "further technical effect" which
| must go beyond the inherent technical interactions between hardware and
| software.
| On the other hand, a CII (even in the form of a computer program) that can
| provide this further technical effect can be patentable, subject to the other
| patentability requirements, such as novelty and inventive step. In this case,
| it would be recognised as providing a technical solution to a technical
| problem.


Commission says the Community Patent is all about Software Patents

,----[ Quote ]
| The European Commission has issued a communication asking for the creation of
| the Community Patent in order for "ICT companies to protect their inventions
| in the single market". Large companies were rejecting the software patent
| directive, aiming to validate software patents via the Community Patent and
| skip the debate about patentable subject matter.


EPO comments on EU pharmaceutical sector inquiry

,----[ Quote ]
| The EPO also welcomes the emphasis the report places on the need for the
| creation of a Community patent, and a centralised, specialised European
| patent judiciary.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index