🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MONTNARO.91Oct8122759@spyder.crd.ge.com> montanaro@crd.ge.com (Skip Montanaro) writes:
>In article <ROCKWELL.91Oct7204450@socrates.umd.edu> rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Deluth Miller-Rockwell) writes:
>
>   The difference between patents and copyrights is that patents are
>   expensive to obtain.  A direct mapping of GNU or FSF onto patents
>   would take a lot of dollars.
>
>It may take a lot of money to successfully get a patent, however, it might
>not take much money to write a patent application that is sufficiently
>complete/complex/worthy that it can't be trivially rejected by the USPTO. If
>that proves true, how about a little civil disobedience? Flood the USPTO
>with tons of patent applications, effectively rendering the system useless.

Actually it isn't illegal is it? Since they have a policy of granting trivial
patents there is nothing illegal about filing to patent everything that isn't
nailed down. 

Would it be possible for someone to post information about how this can be
done with minimal cost? I assume that trivial ideas that later turn out to be
good for clobbering large patent holders could be pursued all the way. I think
the threat of millions of potential patents might finally bring the point
home. There are times when the best defense is a good offense.
-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact".   ------
Hackers do it for fun.  | First they came for the drug users, I said   \    /
"Profesionals" do it for money. | nothing, then they came for hackers,  \  /
Managers have others do it for them. | I said nothing... STOP W.O.D.     \/