Comments on: U.S., EU Declare Biggest Trade War

By: Atm

Atm — Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:26:13 +0000

Patents expire, so if the person holding the patent actually wants to make money from it they should either sell something using the patented technology, or they should license it in a manner that will maximize their profits. If products using the technology disappear from the market, the patent holders aren't going to be making money.

As for whether patents could make open source software illegal, I find that unlikely. I do think it will limit the competitiveness and reach of open source software, which is perfectly fine with me. I like open source software, but I don't think it ought to have an inherent right to all coding inventions.

Copyright is not sufficient to protect investments in ideas involved in algorithms implemented in software. If you don't have software patents, open source programmers will simply take those ideas or reverse engineer those algorithms and implement them in their packages, reducing the incentive to invest in developing sophisticated software algorithms. Alternatively, countries with low cost programmers will take advantage of algorithmic inventions developed elsewhere and undercut on price.

Now I would argue that the 20 year life of a patent might be excessive for software, where the cost of development is the principal cost, and with the only costs afterwards being for service, support, marketing and distribution costs since manufacturing costs approach zero.

By: Ralf Goergens

Ralf Goergens — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:54:57 +0000

Besides the theft of of intellectual property it also has to be discussed what should be intellectual property and what shouldn't. Patents on software are not necessarily a good thing, for they could arguably (and as far as their propenents are concerned intentionally) make open source software illegal. American patent law also makes it possible to patent far too generic and sometimes downright trivial stuff, which in turn means that the patent holder can collect money from a huge swathe of companies. The result is that, just for example, force feedback controllers (real force feedback, not just vibrations) for computer games have disappeared since somebody holds a patent on the whole thing. Another examples are patents on one-click online purchases.

By: Atm

Atm — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:54:35 +0000

The de facto subsidy business from military contracts is pure crap though, as Airbus owners, the ones who do much of the airframe construction, are themselves large defense and aerospace contractors. There technical expertise has been paid for in part by military contracts. Also Airbus has military business itself, for VIP transports, the A330MR tanker and transport, and of course the A400 military transport. I've seen Airbus supporters proudly proclaim that the latter will be paid for completely by the government and will give Airbus the technical know how regarding building composite fuselages.

As far as US military contracts being a subsidy, we can look at the number of aerospace companies receive defense contracts and count the number that were in the end successful in the commercial space, and count only one. And then we can look at the relative amounts of defense money these companies received and realize the successful one, Boeing, received the least. Then maybe we will realize that defense business can be a distraction because it diverts engineering resources to other products and fields that have narrow application outside of the defense market.

By: Secure Liberty

Secure Liberty — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 13:32:20 +0000

Bye Bye Miss European Pie...

..took my Peugot to levy but the levy was dry. It's a beautiul day in the neighborhood of nations, but not in the neighborhood of overreaching, massive, nanny state fools who want to decide everything for you. The French, often vilified, never dupli...

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:43:50 +0000

One of the EU's complaints is that Boeing gets de facto government subsidies through its government contracts. If the 767 tanker deal had gone through, I'd say they have a much stronger case.

By: Sean Hackbarth

Sean Hackbarth — Wed, 01 Jun 2005 11:17:16 +0000

Is this really a "trade war?" Tariffs and other trade restrictions aren't being placed on each other's goods. The two parties are just going to loudly argue at the WTO. Wasn't that one of the points for the creation of that body?