How does one respond to this statement?

Read this wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_European_Patent_Convention

For me, the key fallacy here is the mistaken belief that 'software is the consequence of substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms'. Software doesn't have to be that way. Free software is all about an alternative way to that - where software is the consequence of many people working together voluntarily, as part of a community movement, with no interaction at all with large firms. Anyone with a computer can pick up a keyboard and write some software - possibly contributing to a larger free software project.

The GNU/Linux operating system and most of the packages that comprise it are manifest counter-examples that disprove their point, that software patents are essential for software development (e.g. Firefox, X11, GNOME, LibreOffice ...).

Adding to what Salman said, that explains why patenting programs is not generally allowed in the EU. However, it is still allowed to patent computer related stuff, like mp3 was for a long time or the rar algorithm ¿is right now?

Maybe those computer related patents could make sense if they lasted for a much shorter period than now.

You might thing that a car company needs 20 years to find a decent profit from another 10 investment in the development of a new engine, but claiming such with computers is just ridiculous. The profit will largely overcome the spends in less than a couple of years, having in mind that no company will spend as much time developing patentable stuff as car or the "general" industry spend.

To show that it is possible to get a profit, you can always refer to RedHat: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/patent-promise

http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html (less than 29 minutes) is a must-watch.

With twice more time, http://dcc.ufmg.br/~lcerf/wpa.mp3 is very much worth listening too.

Patents stifle innovation by preventing one from building on the work of others. It is inefficient to have to repeat work just because a component of your project is NIH.

The government should break up monopolies. Patents allow it to grant them instead. This incentivizes companies to pursue frivolous patents to hinder their competitors instead of coming up with new ideas.

"But how will developers make money?" I reject the assumption that coercive acquisition of wealth is the only motivation for innovation. Plenty of free software projects rely on volunteers and donations. Without software patents and proprietary licenses, they would be able to achieve even more because they would spend less time performing redundant work. However, even if we pretend that software cannot be created without a profitable business model, Red Hat proves that patents and proprietary licenses are unnecessary in order to profit from software development.

"But what if I have an idea that I can't realize without funding?" Crowdfunding or a Red-Hat-like business model can solve this problem without the disadvantages of antisocial software patents.

Software patents reward companies who can afford a large team of lawyers and punish potential innovators who have to rely on the strength of their ideas alone. They don't magically make people more imaginative.

something to read

The Danger of Software Patents

by Richard Stallman

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.en.html

Software Patents and Literary Patents

by Richard Stallman

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html

Software patents — Obstacles to software development

by Richard Stallman
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-patents.en.html

FSF joins forces with Software Freedom Law Center and Open Source Initiative to fight software patents in U.S. Supreme Court
https://www.fsf.org/news/fsf-joins-forces-with-software-freedom-law-center-and-open-source-initiative-to-fight-software-patents-in-u-s-supreme-court

Software Patents and Literary Patents
by Richard Stallman
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html
he first version of this article was published in The Guardian, of London, on June 23, 2005. It focused on the proposed European software patent directive.

How many inventors had their ideas stolen by big corporations because of our dysfunctional system/patent laws? What about their money and time? Patent laws are strangling innovation. Patent laws were there to originally help encourage the sharing of ideas, now it is not about who is right, it is about who has the most lawyers.

I think the question here is a bit weird... "what does one respond"?
Well, if you're asked a question, then why not just answer what you think is correct?

I think it will not be so convincing if you just repeat what other people told you.
Maybe you can find examples of absurd patents and cases when developers have been unrightfully sued.

If you have just second-hand-information on the topic (like most people do, including me), then you can be upright about it and say: "From what I've heard i think patents are wrong because..."
Or "I don't know much about it, but I really dislike the idea of software patents because... (I believe practical knowledge should be freely available)".

You don't have to claim to know everything, and you don't have to try to convince people who already made up their minds.
At the same time, you can just question on what grounds the arguments of your opponent are based on. I mean let's look at the quote that you've given:

“Software patents are essential because they are the consequence of substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms. Without software patents or without adequately protecting them, the incentives of firms to innovate and invest would be undermined, with the consequence that consumers may be worse off as a result.”

How does she reach this conclusion? How many firms (I guess this means companies) has she observed in detail so that she can
put this thesis on solid grounds?
I bet there aren't that many. So if she's just guessing and telling vague ideas, then I think a simple "My guess is that you're wrong" can be already enough.

Contributing a little more to what was said by others:

First lets make a point about what is "economics". To put it simple,
economics deals with evaluating how scarcity or abundance of a given
resource (not money!) shapes how society behaves. Those who understand
econmics feel free to complement what I just said, because I'm just
simplifying the description.

Now, what *isn't* economics? Simple: the art of getting rich. If one
talks about "economics" in terms of getting rich, then you are talking
about chrematistics (see [1][2]).

Having said all that, lets dive a bit more:

There are various resources in the world, besides there are those which
are consumed when used, and those which are very costly/expensive to
transport/carry arround, even more, there are resources that can be used
and combined in order to form other resources that might have the same
properties as the parent ones... or not.

Thanks to computers and things that store stuff digitally, resources
such as "knowledge" and "information" can now make other resources that,
*by nature* (pay attention to this, it'll bite you in the future
otherwise), are non-rival and non-excludable, both in the economic sense:

- non-rival because, *by nature*, if one reads a digital book, for
example, its pages don't start to get old, neither they get undesired
wraps nor start to fall off. Furthermore, non-rival because, once
again *by nature*, it doesn't prevent another person to read that same
copy or any other copy originating exactly from the one you're
supposedly reading.

- non-excludable because, *by nature*, there is no way to prevent those
who have not paid for it from having access to, say, the digital book
given as example before. Furthermore, the cost of transaction for
things originating from the "knowledge"+"information" combination and
which can be stored digitally somehow are almost non-existing, take
any computer file you have and which you received from someone else
and copy it anyware: you're done, the transaction cost for you was
almost nothing.

Now, what does software patents have to do with what I said here?

If one takes a resource that is naturally non-rival, non-excludable,
which can be stored digitally, that came from the combination of
"knowledge"+"information" resources --- to summarize: a public good by
nature (in economic sense) --- and puts it under "contracts" (also in
the economic sense) which are made like it's done for non-public goods
(idem) and which excessively limit the capabilities of one party
relative to what the offerer/provider already can do, then we have a
tragedy of the anticommons, where everyone who *will be entering* the
economic scenario and which could be providing a given public good by
nature (again economically speaking) will feel tempted to hold up (not
do anything), even though they might not know if there is already such a
thing, this is well described in [3][4] and briefly mentioned in [5][6].

In the other hand, if one makes the contract too loose so as to say "do
whatever you want, I'll give you everything and not require anything
besides attribution to me" then we *will still* face the problem of
finding/fostering an oportunistic competitive behavior which further
makes the tragedy of the anticommons stronger (see [3][4]), because this
/homo economicus/ will attempt to proprietarize the adapatations done
individually by that person.

So both the receiving party and the offering one must find a contract
that makes everyone possible to make everything as long as the thing in
question and all the derivatives are kept under the same contract,
furthermore, make all those involved contractually bound to provide
everything that is needed in order to study and adapt the object.

Finally, one has to take into account that references [2][3][4] have
some minor issues, to know more see my comment on [7].

Now a funny observation: when digital technology started to appear,
people were used to seeing two distinct groups of people: (a) those in
favor of it; (b) those against. Nowadays those still exist, but (a) has
divided itself, so we have: (a) those in favor and which think it still
deserves the same old rival+excludable+oportunistic+competitive
thinking; (b) those in favor and which are contrary of (a); (c) those
against it. So now I'm starting to understand why Stallman seems to
recommend digital *extraction*, because if the new group (a) continues
this madness it will affect (b), (c) and the rest of (a). Besides, the
old (a) pushed its goal so hard that now it can't carry the burden of
realising what the new (b) is telling. Interestingly, at least from a
quick look, these problems don't seem to exist if one goes to a place
where everyone agrees and forbids use of any digital technology.

[1]

(under CC BY 4.0).

[2]

(under CC BY-NC 4.0).

[3] (under CC BY-NC 4.0).

[4] (under CC BY-NC 4.0).

[5]

(under CC BY 3.0).

[6] (under a
license which allows usage, adaptation and redistribution, with
adaptations under similar terms).

[7] .

2017-11-29T00:47:46+0100 name at domain wrote:
> “Software patents are essential because they are the consequence of
> substantial risk-taking and investment on the part of firms. Without
> software patents or without adequately protecting them, the incentives
> of firms to innovate and invest would be undermined, with the
> consequence that consumers may be worse off as a result.”
>
> This is a typical argument that is made in favour of software
> patents. How does one respond to it?
>

--
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, veja formas de se comunicar
instantaneamente comigo no endereço abaixo.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
(apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.

What is the difference between GPLv2 and GPLv3?
http://www.ifross.org/en/what-difference-between-gplv2-and-gplv3

GPLv3 of June 29, 2007 contains the basic intent of GPLv2 and is an Open Source license with a strict copyleft (→ What types of licenses are there for Open Source software, and how do they differ?) However, the language of the license text was strongly amended and is much more comprehensive in response to technical and legal changes and international license exchange.

The new license version contains a series of clauses that address questions that were not or were only insufficiently covered in version 2 of the GPL. The most important new regulations are as follows:

a) GPLv3 contains compatibility regulations that make it easier than before to combine GPL code with code that was published under different licenses (→ What is license compatibility?). This concerns in particular code under Apache license v. 2.0.

b) Regulations concerning digital rights management were inserted to keep GPL software from being changed at will because users appealed to the legal regulations to be protected by technical protective measures (such as the DMCA or copyright directive). The effectiveness in practice of the contractual regulations in the GPL has yet to be seen.

c) The GPLv3 contains an explicit patent license, according to which people who license a program under the GPL license both copyrights as well as patents to the extent that this is necessary to use the code licensed by them. A comprehensive patent license is not thereby granted. Furthermore, the new patent clause attempts to protect the user from the consequences of agreements between patent owners and licensees of the GPL that only benefit some of the licensees (corresponding to the Microsoft/Novell deal). The licensees are required to ensure that every user enjoys such advantages (patent license or release from claims), or that no one can profit from them.

d) In contrast to the GPLv2, the GPLv3 clearly states that there is no requirement to disclose the source code in an ASP use of GPL programs as long as a copy of the software is not sent to the client. If the copyleft effect is to be extended to ASP use (→ When does independently developed software have to be licensed under the GPL?), the Affero General Public License, Version 3 (AGPL) must be applied that only differs from the GPLv3 in this regard.

When is GPLv2 used, and when is GPLv3 used?
http://www.ifross.org/en/when-gplv2-used-and-when-gplv3-used
License holders can choose if they want to use version 2 or version 3 of the software if the following reference is provided:

"this program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.”

With which licenses is the GPLv3 compatible?
http://www.ifross.org/en/which-licenses-gplv3-compatible\
The GPLv3 is compatible with the following licenses (but not vice versa):

Apache License, Version 2
Affero General Public License, Version 3 (see sec. 13 of GPLv3)
Lesser General Public License, Versions 2, 2.1 and 3 (LGPL)
BSD license without the advertising clause
CeCILL (CONTRAT DE LICENCE DE LOGICIEL LIBRE CeCILL)
Artistic License 2.0
Zope Public License, Version 2.0 und 2.1

Note: This means OSS under a listed license can generally be used for creating OSS under GPLv3. It does not mean OSS under the GPLv3 may be incorporated into OSS which uses one of these licenses.

If there is no reference to the license version, you can also choose between version 2 and version 3.

The licenseholder is only restricted to a specific license version by the phrases "version 2 only," or version 2” without the added phrase "any later version". This is the case with the Linux kernel that contains such a reference by Linus Torvalds in the COPYING file. Source text under "version 3 of the license or (at your option) at any later version" cannot be introduced into the Linux kernel, and conversely, code that is licensed as "version 2 only" cannot be used in projects that are already licensed under GPLv3. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are then incompatibl

adefeno read the article:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

read it carefully and you will understand the differences of licenses