Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:50 -0800
Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:15:50 -0800
on Wed, Dec 22, 2004 at 04:25:25PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull (stephen@xemacs.org) wrote:
> >>>>> "Michael" == Michael R Bernstein <webmaven@cox.net> writes:
> 
>     Michael> Doesn't that make open peer-review *more* important for
>     Michael> pharmaceuticals?
> 
> Not particularly.  According to Steve McConnell, "open" (ie, "I'll
> look at it if and when I feel like it") peer review can't hold a
> candle to review by a team of expert professionals.  

Yes, but if it's open, *then* any arbitrary team of expert professionals
 can  look at it.

In the case of free software, this leads to peer review of code, by
independent experts, notable cases being OpenBSD and sponsored reviews
by Red Hat, etc.  As well as numerous security organizations competing
to uncover issues.

Closed means selecting the groups who can review, and very often,
selecting what they can disclose about reviews.  In both software and
pharmaceuticals, there are notorious cases of such restrictions leading
to nondiscovery or nondisclosure of subsequently revealed issues.

Me?  I'm for sunshine.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
    After a storm comes a calm.


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]