🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1991Jul17.154708.1942@news.larc.nasa.gov> burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:

>[some stuff about particular problems with software patents and
>obviousness vs. non-obviousness deleted]

>One little problem with this idea, of patenting NON-OBVIOUS
>solutions... who decides whats OBVIOUS and whats NON-OBVIOUS? You? Me?
>The Patent Office? Well, thats exactly what the patent office *has*
>been doing which is why we are in the situation we're in right now!
>What I consider obvious and what you consider obvious are probably two
>completely different things. The theory of relativity was obvious to 
>Einstein, just think of where we would be today if Albert had decided
>to patent his theory of relativity!!!
>
>Ahhh...just imagine the wonderful world we would have if all the
>scientists of the world patented "their" theories...Think of all 
>the people walking because Carnot decided to patent the Carnot cycle
>(one of the underlying thermodynamic principles for the internal
>combustion engine). Or perhaps, think of all the physics that couldn't
>be taught if Newton had patented his laws of gravitation (well, they
>*could* be taught, but you'd have to pay a license fee...:-).
>But what does this have to do with software? Both are intellectual
>property, both are some form of algorithm (whats an equation? an
>algorithm!). An even better idea, lets patent any of the possible ways
>to evaluate an integral, or solve a differential equation, boy, then
>we *would* see some *real* progress made! If we had done that back
>when these ideas first came about, we *might* (I can't stand the
>excitement!), just might, be able to travel at the awesome speed of
>25mph!!! or it might only take a few months to send information across
>the country!!!
>
>No, the problem is not patenting software, the problem is using
>patents as a litigation tool to stifle creativity by FORCING people
>to continually reinvent the wheel instead of building upon the wheel
>to produce something even more useful. Patents do not promote
>innovation and research and development, they promote power and money
>consolidation, and promote monopolies. If you own the majority (if not
>all) the patents in a given field, you can dictate what that field
>will do, and where it will go.
>
>okay, sorry, I'm off my soapbox now...

While I don't disagree with your points about the subjectivity of
obviousness and the way people seem to be using patents these days, I
don't think the scenarios you imagine in your second paragraph could
come to pass.  My understanding is that patents can only be granted
for implementations of an idea, not the ideas themselves.

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu