Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9577 misc.int-property:649 comp.unix.bsd:7012 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!utcsri!geac!censor!isgtec!robert From: robert@isgtec.com (Robert Osborne) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Message-ID: <3455@isgtec.isgtec.com> Date: 21 Oct 92 19:11:26 GMT References: <1992Oct18.085201.22747@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Sender: news@isgtec.com Lines: 72 terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: # In article <1992Oct17.015308.29380@pegasus.com>, richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: # |> In article <1992Oct15.144359.7019@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes: # |> > [...] # |> >Until we have such an operative definition, I feel safe in saying that # |> >any example I would offer up would be greeted by a loud braying from the # |> >anti-patent faction claiming it was *obviously* not of a benefit to # |> >society. # |> # |> Without taking either side, let me ask: # |> # |> Can we assume that you are not willing to entertain the possibility # |> that patents may ultimately not be beneficial to society? # # Robert's gripe about definition is a valid one. The lack of an operative # definition which includes the *possibility* that a patent can be beneficial # for society robs him of a ruler to use in judging. Huh? Why doesn't he just give an example of a software patent that HE thinks is a obvious benefit to society? Saying that he can't provide an example since the "other side" has an unreasonable definition of obvious is a cop out. # If the ruler is infinitely long, then all patents are by definition lacking; # Robert is then fighting the St. Thomas Aquinas logical tautology, since by # the definition of "beneficial" it excludes patents as a class. How long have you been waiting to stick Aquinas in a coversation :-) I've yet to see anybody who has *defined* patents to be bad. I have seen lots of examples of patents that do harm from Dan and others. Why can't anybody provide an example of a beneficial patent? # Robert's task appears to be: # # For some set of objects 'A', there exists a nonintersecting set # of objects 'B'. Find an example of an object from set 'B' that is # also in set 'A'. # # This is, of course, impossible. Robert's opponent is defining set 'A' as # "beneficial to society" and set 'B' as "patents". Gaak! Where were you trained in logic? Robert's opponent have HYPOTHESIZED that A and B are disjoint. To prove them wrong all Robert has to do is find a few elements that are in both A and B. # All Robert is asking is that set 'A' be defined as "beneficial to society", # set 'B' as "not beneficial to society". He then wants the boundries of # set 'A' and set 'B' defined in terms of attributes other than whether or # not an object is a member of set 'C' (patents). This gives him a task that # is possible to complete, that of determining if sets 'A' and 'C' intersect # anywhere (ie: are there any patents which are "beneficial to society" given # the definition of the term). Give us an example of C in A, any A. We can argue about whether A is valid when given an example. # I don't think Robert is arguing the fact that sets 'B' and 'C' intersect # (ie: that there exist patents which are "not beneficial to society"). # # I think it's up to Robert's opponents to quit begging the question (a logical # fallacy) to try to "prove" their view, and give Robert a fair shot at finding # a patent that meets a reasonable definition of "beneficial to society". Nobody has defined "beneficial to society", let alone forced Robert to accept an unreasonable one. Rob. -- Robert A. Osborne ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!robert or robert@isgtec.com