Subject: Re: software patents are (almost) good
From: Thomas Lord <lord@emf.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:55:16 -0700
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:55:16 -0700
Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> Nudge nudge to Mr. Rosen if he cares to give a professional opinion but
>> mine is along these lines:
>>
>> If you're selling ROMs as a mechanism of distribution well, then,
>> bully for you.   If you're selling a device incorporating such ROM's
>> in a non-generic way, bully for me.   In fact, I can see (imo) how
>> your all-but-the-ROMs-included device, designed for the ROMs in
>> question, would infringe in a contributory way.
>>     
>
> I'm sorry, Thomas, I don't want to rise to that challenge on a public list. 
>   

That's unfortunate.   I respect your necessary professional reticence
but I suspect this is more a case of misunderstanding between us
than of error.  For example:

Distribution in electronic form of the RSA patent text is, given
a realistically achievable interpreter, distribution in an executable
format.   Distribution of the RSA patent text is, by definition pretty
much, non-infringing.   A ROM chip is as good as any other
medium for such an activity.   That's all I'm saying.



> But being an inveterate chatterer, I will suggest that that's not at all how
> patent issues are framed in court. You're spewing bully here rather than
> real law, but I'm not going to help. :-)
>
> Perhaps someone else will be braver than I.
>
>   

It's clear cut in my mind and, yes, I'm fully aware that jurisprudence
isn't there yet:  patents exclude certain trade activities -- no more no 
less
-- and relinquish publication (because that's the trade).

A patent is basically a temporary, proprietary right to privately tax
certain forms of trade.  There's nothing at all to tax in the exercise of
the four software freedoms.

-t



> /Larry
>
>
>   



Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Nudge nudge to Mr. Rosen if he cares to give a professional opinion but
mine is along these lines:

If you're selling ROMs as a mechanism of distribution well, then,
bully for you.   If you're selling a device incorporating such ROM's
in a non-generic way, bully for me.   In fact, I can see (imo) how
your all-but-the-ROMs-included device, designed for the ROMs in
question, would infringe in a contributory way.
    

I'm sorry, Thomas, I don't want to rise to that challenge on a public list. 
  

That's unfortunate.   I respect your necessary professional reticence
but I suspect this is more a case of misunderstanding between us
than of error.  For example:

Distribution in electronic form of the RSA patent text is, given
a realistically achievable interpreter, distribution in an executable
format.   Distribution of the RSA patent text is, by definition pretty
much, non-infringing.   A ROM chip is as good as any other
medium for such an activity.   That's all I'm saying.



But being an inveterate chatterer, I will suggest that that's not at all how
patent issues are framed in court. You're spewing bully here rather than
real law, but I'm not going to help. :-)

Perhaps someone else will be braver than I.

  

It's clear cut in my mind and, yes, I'm fully aware that jurisprudence
isn't there yet:  patents exclude certain trade activities -- no more no less
-- and relinquish publication (because that's the trade).

A patent is basically a temporary, proprietary right to privately tax
certain forms of trade.  There's nothing at all to tax in the exercise of
the four software freedoms.

-t



/Larry