🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4656@cluster.cs.su.oz.au> sps@email.sp.unisys.com (Steven P. Skabrat) writes:
>stuff is getting old.  For those who have that free software/I'm a
>programmer I do as I like/let everybody own all software
>communally/socialist/leftist intellectual bent to this subject I suggest
>you wake up and smell the coffee -- you guys are in the minuscule
>minority of the population who:
>1) cares about programmers
>2) cares about programmers having the freedom to write a computer program
> anyway they want.
>
>For 99.99999% of the US population what is important is that when someone
>creates or invents something, the inventor can protect that creation
>through the legal process so that others don't steal the result of his
>ingenuity.  

   99.99999% of the US population doesn't know what's good for the software
industry, either.  They don't keep track of research and development
(except to the extent that companies advertise their products) so they
don't have any idea how software patents will affect the industry (or even
their pocketbooks) until they see yet higher prices on the software they
want to buy. 

   Since it is people who work in the trade (i.e. programmers) who complain
the most about the effect of patents in the computer industry, I consider
it a legitimate concern, since these people know their work and know they'd
rather spend time programming than going to court.  I think that within
this subset of the population, the percentage of people who are concerned
about this matter is substantially larger than you claim (alas, I don't
have any more exact numbers than you do).

>             This result gives people the incentive to create, invent,
>produce, etc.  Call it capitalistic greed, conservatism, whatever.  But
>thats what the United States copyright and patent systems are based on.

   The patent system was created to encourage innovation and creativity,
not to protect any intrinsic "right" to intellectual property.  (If there
were such a thing, why would patents and copyrights *ever* expire?)  I have
never seen a lack of innovation in the software industry or in the field of
computer science in general.  Why do we suddenly need patents when the
system had been working just fine?

   The status quo has been changed because of a misinterpretation of the
Diamond vs. Diehr case and (IMHO, unethical) corporate greed.  If it
weren't for a plentiful supply of the latter, we wouldn't be in this mess.

---
Noah Friedman <friedman@prep.ai.mit.edu>