🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <131@euteal.ele.tue.nl> plato@ele.tue.nl (plato) writes:
>In article <NELSON.89Oct17094528@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes:
>>True, but Apple wants it the other way.  They want the ideas behind the
>>software (the "look and feel") to be protectable.
>
>Suppose I invented something, say a compact disc player.
Suppose you prove a theorem. Would you like to see mathematics
come to a stand-still while everybody protects their ideas?
Besides, using your analogy you wouldn't be able to package the
CD player in a similar manner to any of your competitors.
(No ON-OFF switch, no LED display, no sliding platform, etc.)
Remember "look and feel" is a wide open concept that could
strangle any new ideas.

>Everyone thinks its perfectly normal and sensible to get
>myself some patents. This way everyone can use and profit
>from my ideas but I would benefit too.
>In case of software products this procedure seems to be immoral.
There are two distinct issues being addressed by patent (protectionist)
debates: Patentable software (algorithms) and "look and feel".
Imagine if the early computer pioneers placed the almighty dollar
over advancing knowledge. LR(1) parsing or for that matter anything
in the "dragon" book would be royalty costs for any language
translator company. Let's leave patents to physical processes and
techniques.

Anthony
//// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu ////
"I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2