Re: what does a patent restrict?

On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna[_at_]gate.net> wrote:
>
> Of course, none of this has anything to do with the proposition that
> "its not the developers who need a patent license, its the users."
> Theory of computation has nothing to offer to inform the answer to that
> issue. Mr. Winebarger is mistaken in this regard for the reasons set
> forth in my preceding posting, and the message he quotes below:

    Sorry, I misread where that "the truth is far more interesting" applied.

    As for whether or not patent licenses are needed, I still think there is still room to say that this issue is not completely settled (and let's note for the record, I'm not a lawyer giving legal advice, but someone interested in these laws from a philosophical perspective, and because they have an effect on me and what I do):

1. If it is allowable to have patents that restrict speech (in this case software, because it is speech), then there is a conflict with the 1st amendment to consider.
2. Aside from that, and specifically for free software (in the GNU sense), there's the issue of the "fundamental public policy" that the courts control. Specifically, whether it's desirable as a matter of public policy to prevent people from giving others their own expressive works to promote the profit of individuals (here I'm not talking about just copying expression, but actually writing it themselves). I might be mistaken, no case involving patent infringing free software has been taken to court (most free software authors not having the money/interest to defend against a patent infringement suit - as there have certainly been threats of such suits).

    I still hold out hope, because at times the judiciary has shown much better sense and long term vision than either Congress or lawyers myopically interpreting case law for the benefit of their clients.

Lynn

Lynn Winebarger
<owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> Received on Tue Oct 26 1999 - 01:05:22 GMT