that’s why I alluded to this particular situation making life difficult for us practitionners earlier, because it is often the case that there is nothing to patent in the startup’s tech -[/quote:950bbe53c0]
vsNo, I am saying that the new policy is bad because it makes it hard for us to get patents for any company involved in software development: those deserving of protection for genuine innovation … just like those not deserving of protection… [/quote:950bbe53c0]
I certainly read these as saying two different things. Is the first one wrong?
Don’t take my comments out of context, please – the “ifs” I outlined were to provide an example of the variables involved in the decision process about patents, and are the norm for any softco after investment money. [/quote:950bbe53c0]
I amnt sure I agree. Those ‘ifs’ really were quite significant, and Im not sure the set of companies after all the ifs is near as big as the set of all companies. You took that as implicit, and I don’t think it is.After you sure you aren’t basing your numbers of software firms that need to patent IP on what is perhaps a misrepresentative sample you encounter because you work in patents?
I amnt claiming to the contrary, – Im honestly not sure – but if you have independant stats, it would be most useful. (ie, some sort of credible research that would back up the claim about how many of these SMEs would suffer without software patents).What I don’t get is how you deduce this means the owners of the company mentioned should be allowed solely decide the software patents policy? I mean, surely they are one of the most biased parties there is?[/quote:950bbe53c0]
I’m not deducing, it’s recounted experience. If such decisions (patents or not?) in your company or the company you work for are collegial, and the MD asks the programmers’ permission/opinion as to patents, congratulations
[/quote:950bbe53c0]I hoped I had made myself clearer than that.
I was not talking about an individual company, and who gets the say about it’s patent policy.
I was talking about a society that is considering enacting a law, and stating that I believe, contrary to the position you have expressed, that all stakeholders, not just the business owners, but all citizens, should be entitled to an appreciation of the issues, and a say in the laws that are passed to deal with said issues.Something you seem very set against, as you seem to believe very strongly that what patent law is passed is an issue for business owners alone; see my quotes in previous post.
I fully reject your slavery analogies, as both erroneous and actually quite abject.
[/quote:950bbe53c0]I guess it was abject, but surely so much the better for illustrating the error in your logic by analogy?
I was just pointing out that just because business owners _may_ have most to lose, I dont believe that they should be the only ones who get to make the decisions, *about what laws we make that govern their businesses* or have an appreciation of the issues. Like in the analogy.I quite fail to see the impact of patents on human workers and their welfare, other than in economical terms (which work both ways, btw).[/quote:950bbe53c0]
Perhaps this is where part of the problem is – a lot of free software people see patents as acting to limit their freedoms. Some would even go so far as to say it limits their freedom of expression, or their free speech, depending on how far you go.
I amnt saying Im in that camp – but I am saying that if they believe this, if a large number of people believe their freedom is being threatened, rightly or wrongly, surely you can’t mantain your position that only the business owners should be consulted?
A patent is a legal instrument, a ‘right’ which you buy (and which you get only if it is deemed that you deserve it, mind) [/quote:950bbe53c0]
Is it good to be able to buy rights, as you put it?Proverbial nail on head – how do patents affect them, exactly, other than in economical terms? [/quote:950bbe53c0]
One example above.
Again, while you mightnt agree with it, that doesn’t mean you should just dismiss it.By your logic, the chemical or biotech boffins should likewise reject the patenting system because it makes their research harder[/quote:950bbe53c0]
No.
Firstly, my logic applies to software developers.
Secondly, I didn’t say the software developers should try and reject the system. I merely objected to you saying that they should not be consulted.Where did I say that anyone, software developers or not, should reject the system because it makes their research harder? I would be very grateful if you could post a quote, as I cant find it.
Finally, I guess the chemical or biotech boffins, as you put it, don’t reject the patenting system because while it might make their research harder, they accept the price because they believe the other advantages outweight it.
They are different fields than software, and it would appear that – at least to all the software professionals against software patents – the balance of advantages to disadvantages is different too.
And at this point the next logical place to go is a more worthwhile debate on the the merits vs disadvantages of patents.
No, because we law practitionners believe in a due process instead. Anything wrong with that?
[/quote:950bbe53c0]some carefully chosen political nudges in the right places.
[/quote:950bbe53c0]
I was more objecting to the ‘carefully chosen political nudges’ as not being all that due process like, or open, or honest. I would think statements like that do not encourage a trusting and frank dialog between the various sides, but perhaps Im wrong.