Re: [Ldsoss] Dare I say it ... patents ...

[Paul Penrod]

Steven H. McCown wrote: I guess that my concern is that a warranted dislike for frivolous patents has become a disconcerting religious fervor against patents, generally. That's sad, because most don't seem to realize the benefit that they have had on society -- or refuse to realize it. I would agree with you observation here in the context of the US System. Too many cast patents as being against 'freedom'. Freedom of what? No freedom to research or build has been restricted -- only freedom to profit for a time as payment for disclosure. With a patent system, you retain the freedom to enhance, give, share, and donate. ***What you don't have is the freedom to take.*** Since there is a tenant that you can't take what others don't want to give, there is a movement underway to redefine what private ownership means. The latter is what all of the arguments seem to be about. Stallman's point, which I do not subscribe to. In order for the patent system to function properly, there needs to be a reasonable boundary on what is actually patentable, for how long - as measured against industry time, and the ability to thoroughly research a patent (inside the USPTO) in order to, within reason, determine actual uniqueness. In other words, the barrier to entry needs to be higher from an actual innovation standpoint, not necessarily economic. Where the system, IMO, went off track was in the 70's when Congress started to allow intangibles to be grouped as patentable, and not just Copyrightable. I do not believe ownership had anything to do with it, except indirectly as a natural consequence of issuance, where the USPTO states publicly that "this idea is now yours". Most of the silliness surrounding the knee jerk reaction to frivolous patents are due to lack of education on the part of the people reacting. They know in their gut (and they are correct) that such and such a patent is "wrong", but have not played in the patent system long enough to understand how to articulate their frustration in looking for a way to counteract what they perceive as incorrect. My point about the church was that the church wholeheartedly endorses patents and garnering revenue from them. One example was the solicitation link. Here are a few more examples: It's an economic instrument, nothing more. I personally don't see this as a whole hearted endorsement of patents - more likely a matured investment strategy as part of a much larger portfolio. //----------------------- Title: Multi-channel infrared cableless communication system Patent #: 4,959,828 Assignee: Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day (Salt Lake City, UT) //----------------------- Title: Projection device and loop box Patent #: 4,367,020 Assignee: Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day (Salt Lake City, UT) //-------------------- Title: Mannequin Patent #: 3,973,840 Assignee: Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day (Salt Lake City, UT) //-------------------- The church also endorses revenue from patents through BYU. In 2000, BYU was in the top 10 revenue-garnering universities with regards to patents. BYU also ranked #1 in the number of inventions reported per $1M spent on research. Here is an interesting article (at archive.org): (http://web.archive.org/web/20040626192929/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0, 1249,405019718,00.html) Follow me on this one.... If patents are so bad, then why does the church, endorse their acquisition, ownership, and use? The President of the Corp of the President of the Church... is the Prophet, btw... My only conclusion is that patents must have some redeeming value. Let's find it. No need to. It's been there since day one. Your next sentence sums up partly what is wrong. Yes, some are misusing the patent system. That does need to stop. I do not believe it will till it reaches a point of no return. There is too much money, and too many lawyers chasing that money to stop the train before it crashes. In fact, there is much blame to be laid at the feet of people like Orrin Hatch who fought for and voted for many of the changes to the patent system that has yielded the results people are witnessing today. However, let's not throw out an entire system just because some are misusing it. We can't...and people don't see a reasonable alternative to exercise their options within the system. Hence they react they way they do. Conferences? I have been to several software developer, military, and executive conferences. In 2004, I was at the TTI Vanguard conference on computer security. I happened to get into a discussion with one of the leads of the EFF (CEO? His name slips my mind, but Seth Schoen was speaking). Anyway, the jist of the discussion was that his right to know how government dollars are spent trumps the military's need for operational secrecy. Our dilemma was that while oversight is mandatory, secrecy is vital. We were on opposing sides -- can you guess which? Anyway, the patent discussion has taken on a similar polarization. We can't operate (as humans) without a system of rules, but we shouldn't lock everything away in 'vaults', either. There needs to be a middle ground, but we won't be able to reach it if we don't try to find it... Congress sets the rules for how the USPTO operates. You want balance, then you have to step up to the plate and get involved in the system as it is and vote people of conscience into office that will fix what is broken. It will not be done over night, and if the Senate is successful in giving away the rest of US sovereignty over IP to the UN via WIPO, then the above exercise is a moot point anyway. OSS and GPL like endeavors are a work around to a system that is failing by degrees. Patents are about money - nothing more. There is nothing innovative about a patent, merely an opportunity to profit  from one's endeavor. It provides some protection to an inventor so they have a better shot at profiting from their work, and investors an opportunity to secure the investment. It is legal and it is profitable, hence the Church would be remiss not to take the opportunity, but I have yet to hear any endorsement as such from over the pulpit. It's business, and the gospel is the gospel. Let's not confuse the two. ...Paul Steve -----Original Message----- From: Shane Hathaway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 9:29 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; LDS Open Source Software Cc: 'Jay Askren' Subject: Re: [Ldsoss] Dare I say it ... patents ... Steven H. McCown wrote: I just found it interesting that with all the talk about how bad some perceive patents, that the church would find them palatable enough to solicit them. From the page, it sounded like the church would keep them and profit from them. Someone once asked me to show them the church's official position on patents. Although some will no doubt argue to the contrary, that seemed like an official endorsement, to me. The church is not and does not aspire to be an authority on patents. Does the patent office try to tell you what religion to join? (No doubt there is some patent on how to form or join a religion.) Still, I don't like the full swing that some have made. I've been told that I don't have the 'moral right' to keep inventions for my own benefit and that they 'belong' to everyone. I'm still puzzled as to why the majority gets to decide that for the individual. Of course you have the right to profit from your own hard work--I cite D&C 130:19 as evidence. However, the patent system is a poor way to protect software. Copyrights are a much better match. In a recent interview (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/21/gnu-gplv3-linux-cz_dl_0321stallman2.html), Richard Stallman was asked, "Would it be ethical to steal lines of unfree code from companies like Microsoft and Oracle and use them to create a "free" version of that program?" Here is his answer: "It would not be unethical, but it would not really work, since if Oracle ever found out, it would be able to suppress the use of that free software. The reason for my conclusion is that making a program proprietary is wrong. To liberate the code, if it is possible, would not be theft, any more than freeing a slave is theft (which is what the slave owner would surely call it)." Stallman is using his own personal definition of ethics. Few people agree with his definition. He still makes good arguments, though. We seem to live in a world of ridiculous extremes . where are the 'happy mediums'? Stallman is part of a vocal minority. If you want a more balanced viewpoint, strike up conversations with co-workers, go to conferences, and make friends with software developers you respect. Shane _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss

_______________________________________________
Ldsoss mailing list
Ldsoss@lists.ldsoss.org
http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss