🚀 go-pugleaf

Terry Ritter:
    3. It is necessary to accept what a patent is, and to clearly
       distinguish between an "idea" and a "patent," and, especially,
       a *software* patent.  The fine fuzzy feeling that one has "had"
       a particular idea, but was not able to clearly enunciate or
       specify that idea, indicates that the idea was not sufficiently
       precise to patent.

And yet, the worst of the problems with software patents is that they
are so fuzzy that one can not tell, except by court decree, what is
and what is not covered by that patent.  It is as if someone patented
the nail, called it a fastener, and thus achieved a legal monopoly on
nails, screws, paperclips, glue, knots, buttons, and safety pins.
Even worse, prior existence of any of these devices would not count as
"publication".

   I believe it would be easier to resolve the issue in court, or even
   in congress, than to resolve it here.  And I do not feel that there
   is much desire to *resolve* the issue, but instead only to *win* a
   particular point of view for which any alternative is unacceptable.

Or to find holes in the arguments, so that presentations to these other
bodies might be successful.

   So, feel free to go on without me.

Ok, no problem.

-- 
Raul <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>