Not crypto, but this list has moved out onto IPR issues before, so..

[Owen Lewis]

-----Original Message-----
From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
[mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Julian T. J.
Midgley
Sent: 03 May 2001 10:47
To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Subject: Re: Not crypto, but this list has moved out onto IPR issues before,
so..

The lesson to be learnt from the USA would appear to be that software
patents are prone to abuse, are rarely adequately understood/researched by
those granting them, are consequently granted even when they ought to have
been declared invalid and serve /only/ to redistribute wealth in the
direction of the lawyers.  They stifle innovation, place small companies
at the mercy of corporate behemoths, and, so far as I can tell, have no
useful place in society.
This is a concise re-statement of a position widely held in IT circles.
T'ain't necessarily so.
A patent protects rights - grants a monopoly if you prefer - to an inventor
of a process. There is a requirement that the inventive idea be shown to be
capable of practical expression.
In the world we now have, to insist that for a process or method to be
patentable it must be capable of expression in brass and steel (or whatever)
is risibly quaint. Ours is the age of the inventive and valuable creation of
and uses for information.
Yes, patenting is an expensive process and not for the faint hearted. It is
also the surest way for an inventor reap a reward for his risk,
inventiveness and time. Be very sure that if one, solely or corporately,
spends years creating and proving a unique and valuable process most others
will implement that process for their own benefit and without thought of
rewarding the inventor.
For every 'fat cat' who you can show to abuse the patent laws for
unreasonable gain, I will show you a hundred who will take another's work
for nothing if they can.
In regard to your last sentence, it is an inversion of both the purpose of
patent law and, in my experience as a patentee, of the truth. Patent law
gives the small man/business a protection that enables him compete with
giants. I was about to write here that it is as was David's sling. More
closely. it's akin to Sam'l Colt's Equaliser.
The argument has been made and accepted by some as an article of faith that
'All property is theft'. There is little one can do about faith except be as
gentle as possible with its adherents. For the majority who do not adhere to
this article, the 'ownership' of IPR is as necessary and worthy as any other
form of ownership, namely it tends more to a common good more that it
detracts from it.
Ob Crypto:
	Has patent law inhibited either invention or exploitation of cryptographic
processes? I don't think so.
Owen