Re: what does a patent restrict?

On 10/18/1999, Craig Hayward <chayward[_at_]hbmaynard.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 16, 1999, Jeroen Hellingman <jehe[_at_]kabelfoon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 1999, Mark Lemley <mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Of course, after State Street and AT&T, it's not clear that we
> > > even need to bother with this fiction anymore. It might be that
> > > the program itself is patentable regardless of the medium in which
> > > it is embodied -- including paper. [And patent claims to computer
> > > processes are probably valid even though they don't specify a
> > > medium in which the process will occur].
> >
> > This means that the purpose of patent law (to promote public
> > availability of knowledge) has transmongled by doublespeak lawyers
> > to obtain the total opposite, because, if we cannot record what a
> > patent claims, (in some precise knowledge, for which English is
> > not suitable) we cannot distribute the knowledge at all. Laywers
> > will be the undoing of the U.S. one day...
>
> As someone who has studied the use of the term "knowledge", let me say
> that until patent law can guarantee you access to a person's specific
> thoughts about invention, know-how and context, then it does nothing
> more than make available information. A patent only represents the
> sum of knowledge when used in a context. All I gain, by reference,
> is the information itself. People invariably use the term knowledge
> when they really mean information. Knowledge is a hotly contest word,
> in this new-fangled, get-rich-quick world of knowledge management
> software, consulting, etc. Can what's inside my head truly be managed?
> I don't think so. I know there is a corporate memory at issue. Yes
> you can extract tidbits from employees and keep those things active
> in your company. This is truly what it stands for.
>
> Secondly, I think lawyers, in many of these cases, are already the
> undoing of the US. As someone who does technical writing, I can
> attest to how convoluted expert terminology and vernacular (how's
> that for some $10 words) can be. I tire sometimes of people thrusting
> their verbiage at me, only to realize that it's all alot of hot air to
> make someone sound intelligent. I think being direct, to the point,
> and using language that follows parallel construction and means
> something, shows more intelligence. A technical writer can take a
> 100 page legal "brief" (boy isn't that an oxymoron) and make it into
> 25 pages (ok, I'm being liberal here). Whereas, I've known a few in
> the legal profession (and insurance) who can take this same 100 pages
> and make it 200 pages.
>

What exactly do you object to about patenting software? I simply don't see how patenting software itself, as opposed to software claimed in terms of the machine it "creates," reduces the information provided to the public. The valuable information in either case is information about the program, not the medium.

There are, of course, other policy arguments against patenting software, but in the real world I'm afraid they are ancient history.

Mark Lemley
<mlemley[_at_]mail.law.utexas.edu> Received on Tue Oct 19 1999 - 15:13:21 GMT