Subject: RE: [Freesw] priorart.org
From: Philippe.Aigrain@cec.eu.int
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:01:49 +0200

Isn't it wrong to discuss acknowledgement of contribution to software
innovation with a focus on patent busting? It seems much more important to
reflect on which positive credits are needed, on how one can create visible
and trustable acknowledgement of contributions. Such credits would be
credentials that software innovators could present to possible sources of
funding.

This would remove one of the only substantial arguments for software
patents, which is that software innovators often have trouble attracting
investment because they cannot present tangible evidence of the originality
and quality of their work (compared to innovators in other fields). Software
patents may well be of insignificant value in that respect, but until there
is a convincing alternative, there is a risk that they look useful (at least
to venture capitalists and technology transfer organisations).

Philippe

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Stallman [mailto:rms@gnu.org]
Sent: mardi 15 mai 2001 6:15
To: bfox@ua.com
Cc: Bernard.Lang@inria.fr; shap@eros-os.org; nelson@crynwr.com;
fsb@crynwr.com; freesw@conecta.it; phm@a2e.de
Subject: Re: [Freesw] priorart.org


    It seems to me that a searchable database of prior art is actually
    useful for the purpose of showing that a patent shouldn't have been
    granted.

It is useful for us to have the ability to search the database for
that purpose.  But why offer the facility to possible patent
applicants?


_______________________________________________
Freesw mailing list
Freesw@conecta.it
http://mail.conecta.it/mailman/listinfo/freesw