🚀 go-pugleaf

.provo.novell.com.> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:

   On the other hand, patents are very probably good (once again, in general).
    In my opinion, the arguments against patents for software don't usually
   hold water. Most of them seem to include the idea that the company that
   invented them wouldn't let others use/lisence them. Yet, if the company
   patented a new process (which an algorithm is) then they should be allowed
   to patent it. The problem with software patents today is that some seem to
   be granted for non-unique or previously invented works. This problem will
   be resolved in the future, probably through more lawsuits from companies
   and increased understanding of software by the judicial system.

But something A comes up with, and a patent officer thinks is
"unique," may be intuitively obvious to me when I start
working (not having even seen the original program, much less
the solution)

Consider advertisement airbrush graphics; most people use the
same techniques to create highlights and "chrome" effects; but
these techniques are not patentable. The same should hold true
for programming "techniques" (algorithms)

-- 
- I have decided that it is not boxes but my lack of skill that's the problem.
- Traitor! This kind of attitude will get you nowhere around here. If you must
  know, it's not your boxes that are the problem, it's your lack of a
  sufficient number of boxes. Go out and buy something.