I would if I could. Tried is just now and the link (at the top of
http://www.linux-mandrake.com/en/ )timed out.
Will definately try again, though.
Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Civileme
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 4:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [expert] ePatents
>
>
> I was pleasantly surprised to see the banner on the
> linux-mandrake home page regarding a petition for no
> ePatents.
>
> This makes me wonder, where is the American
> equivalent? It is in fact the U. S. Patent and
> Trademark Office that is one of the biggest
> embarassments of the digital age. If you want to
> consider this off-topic, or you already know why there
> should be no ePatents, read no further.
>
> SCENARIO:
>
> An individual working somewhere comes up with a neat
> little algorithm to do something useful. He publishes
> it on the internet, and lots of other people think it
> is useful, too and incorporate it into their software.
> It is an algorithm based on a mathematical fact, and it
> has been offered to the public, so no copyright is
> possible.
>
> Enter the Technology Company. It doesn't produce
> anything. It is a CEO and two battalions of lawyers,
> and a couple secretaries to handle correwspondence and
> a computer operator to run the bookkeeping system.
> They go to this individual and say, "Hay, what a neat
> idea. Did you know you could patent it? We'll help
> you for $10,000 and when the patent is granted we'll
> pay you $50,000 for it."
>
> So the patent is applied for and granted and the rights
> are assigned and $40,000 changes hands (The $50,000
> less the $10,000 "fee".) Now the technology company
> holds the patent rights to software ALREADY in use (but
> not in use for a full year before the patent
> application).
>
> The patent might be worthless. It is based on a
> mathematical fact, after all, and built on public
> domain knowledge, but to prove it is worthless, someone
> is going to have to go to court, and spend between 2
> million and 200 million dollars in a 10-15 year fight
> to prove it. Everyone working in the industry is
> either aware of this or has a lawyer who will advise
> him of it.
>
> Now the technology company approaches the Company A,
> which is using software or selling software which
> contains the algorithm, and proposes a licensing fee.
> The management of Company A has to decide among three
> choices a) stop using the algorithm, no matter the
> cost (and this includes pre-sold software which would
> have to be recalled and reparations made for the use of
> the algorithm by the customers). b) Pay the licensing
> fee, even for a long-term agreement (the life of the
> patent), or c) risk the company's money on a court
> battle where you lose even if you win. Now which do
> you think they will choose.
>
> The owners/managers of Company A are in a position
> nearly identical to the candy store owner in an inner
> city ghetto who is approached by the ruling gang and
> asked to buy insurance against vandalism. In this
> case, it's "Pay up or we'll destroy your life and wreck
> your company in court." as opposed to, "pay up or
> we'll burn down your business and break your legs."
>
> But the Technology company is by no means done.
> Obviously, since the algorithm enjoyed a brief period
> of apparent freedom, it is reasonable to assume that
> there is yet "pirate" software out there NOT LICENSED
> and paying a fee. If this algorithm produces something
> that can be placed on web sites...
>
> Dear Web site Owner/Operator:
>
> THe BBB Technology Company holds the patent rights to
> the software for producing widgetform fluxawarbles
> which have gained great popularity on the world wide
> web. Since there are unlicensed programs that utilize
> the patented algorithm for the production of widgetform
> fluxawarbles, there is a potential infringement on your
> site from any of your customers who may have placed
> unlicensed fluxawarbles there.
>
> I am writing this to inform you of an opportunity to
> avoid any potential litigation from possibly unlicensed
> fluxawarbles on your web hosting service for a one-time
> license fee the nominal sum of $17,500. Please make
> your check payable to the BBB Technology Company and
> amil it today.
>
> Thank you in advance for your early payment.
>
> Yours very truly,
>
> I. M. Suing
> Chief, Lawyer battalion 417
>
> And what does that mean to Joe Programmer?
>
> JOe has to research the algorithms granted patents, the
> filfe formats granted patents, and then perhaps pay an
> attorney to research faster, better and further amongst
> the myriad of ePatents -- and for what?
>
> So Joe Programmer can write, "hello, world" version 3.
>
> Scientists, including computer scientists, shopuld be
> allowed to stand on each other's shoulders. That is
> what is of highest and best interest to the public and
> to science. Instead, the current patent morass and
> proprietary software has computer scientists standing
> on each other's feet. And, until we find a better
> system and implement it, the situation will worsen
> rather than improve.
>
> Please, go sign the petition. Please,, someone, let's
> get an American version of the petition going. We are
> one of the biggest parts of the problem, thanks to the
> embarassment of an understaffed PTO whose policy is,
> "Grant it, and let the courts decide if it is valid."
>
> Civileme
>
>
>
