🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1727@opus.NMSU.Edu> sitze@nmsu.edu (Richard Sitze) writes:

   While I must agree that software concepts should not be patentable,
   I do wish others would look at the reality of the current situation:

	   It IS currently legal to request a patent on algorithms, and
	   for the moment these patents do exist.

Wrong.  The USPTO is granting algorithm patents, and the appeals court is
upholding them.  That does not mean that the practice is legal.  The
Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter.

According to the law and the Supreme Court decisions as written and
interpreted literally, patenting an algorithm by itself is not legal.

   As long as this state of affairs continues to exist, please quit
   complaining about those who HAVE patents and wish to protect them.
   Complaining is just noise, do something about it (as many of you 
   have/are) if you don't like it.

Complaining is a way of making people aware of the problem, and is a step
in persuading them.  It *is* doing something about it.  So stop
complaining about us complaining.  :-)

   If Mark Williams owns the patent on byte ordering, so be it.

No!

   THEY HAVE THE RIGHT to protect their patent which they appear to be
   doing.

There are two different concepts of "right" involved here.  One is the
legal right, which Mark Williams Co. may have until the the Supreme Court
rules otherwise.  The other is the moral right, which they do not have.

   Remember that the best ideas are usually the most simple... and byte
   ordering is one of those.  Wonderfully obvious in hindsight, simple,
   but it took a while to become really 'wide spread' in practice.

So what!  That is not a reason for granting a monopoly!

-- 
Joe Wells <jbw@uswest.com>