news@helens.Stanford.EDU (news) (08/15/90)
gumby@Cygnus.COM writes: How ironic if it turns out that Free Software is the capitalist tool of the 90's! I'm sorry. "The Capitalist Tool" is a registered slogan of Forbes magazine. Free Software will have to find another slogan. Recant or prepare to be sued. brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: Some would use a strictly utilitarian system, saying that patents exist only to encourage disclosure by bribing the inventor with a temporary monopoly. I think that is one reason for patents, but many also feel that there is something "right" about the inventor being rewarded. One utilitarian here. Patents dangle an economic carrot that serves two purposes. 1) Encouraging disclosure. 2) Fostering innovation. The intent is clearly stated in the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress shall have power ..... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Art 1.8. In the software arena today, circumstances are substantially different than when patent monopolies were introduced. 1) The pace of innovation is high. Even without patent protection, most of these "discoveries" would be made by someone else within a few years. 2) The lifespans of technologies are decreasing. 17 years of protection represents a much larger part of the entire useful life of a software technology than has historically been true of mechanical products. 3) University researchers discover many algorithms, and patents are not their main motivation. 4) Software can be a cottage industry. Unlike manufacturing, it requires comparably few resources to produce a product. Thousands of software patents are like land mines making it very dangerous ground for a small company. But given that monopolies are harmful to free competition, if software patents are not necessary for fostering innovation, why have them? brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: We draw upon several ethics for this. The utilitarian is just one. But, as Yoda said, there is another. It is based on the concept that ownership should derive from creation -- that you own the results of your labours. Perhaps, but patents and UI copyrights not only protect against someone "taking" your idea. They also prevent someone else with the same original idea from using it. Even worse, they prevent someone with a new discovery, which builds upon the first, from using it, even if the new discovery is much more innovative and significant than the first. This stifles innovation. One could apply Brad's ownership arguments to scientific or mathematical discoveries, which often take years, or even decades, of work. Why shouldn't society allow such patents? Ethically, because granting the scientist ownership of the new idea would harm the rights of others more than it enhances the rights of the scientist, not to mention the "utilitarian" argument that it would destroy scientific progress. There's a continuum here. The question is where to draw the line. It's quite important, since laws and courts are very bad at drawing antialiased lines, i.e. handling the "gray" region near the boundary. Jim Helman Department of Applied Physics Durand 012 Stanford University FAX: (415) 725-3377 (jim@KAOS.stanford.edu) Voice: (415) 723-9127