Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9540 misc.int-property:610 comp.unix.bsd:6857
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!caen!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Message-ID: <1992Oct20.201929.3183@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1992Oct17.015308.29380@pegasus.com> <1992Oct18.085201.22747@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <id.X18U.D6J@ferranti.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 20:19:29 GMT
Lines: 45
In article <id.X18U.D6J@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
>The rate of innovation in the software community is simply amazing, and needs
>no intervention from government to encourage the creation or publication of
>new algorithms. If the best defense you can come up with to the contrary
>position is that I, or we, or some imaginary opponent hasn't defined the
>phrase "beneficial to society" you've lost at the starting gate.
Nor, by extension, non-intervention by government (by way of patent reform)
to remove a "stifiling" influence?
I think the argument against software patents is required to show deleterious
effects of patent law. Here, Peter claims "The rate of innovation in the
software community is simply amazing". Perhaps the reason "no intervention
.... to encourage the creation or publication of new algorithms" is necessary
is *because* software patents make it more cost effective to innovate than
to license? Would the rate of innovation *drop* were it not more cost
effective? When was the last time you saw a new design for a sheet metal
screw?
The purpose of Article I.8.8 is to provide incentive... does it matter if
the incentive is positive or negative to those receiving the motivation,
as long as they *are* somehow motivated and the ends (fostering invention)
are accomplished? The spirit, not the letter, of the law, in other words.
This argues *for* software patents, not against.
P.S.: This still doesn't mean USL is correct in attempting to twist the
copyright law into a form of software patent, nor that I agree with the
idea that software patents should be allowed without removing copyright
protection at the same time. A process is not art, nor is art a process.
One should not be allowed to patent and copyright the same expression of
an idea.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------