🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7081@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>, jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) writes:
|> With all the recent noise on this group about laughable patents granted
|> by the US Patent Office for various commonplace software ideas, I think
|> we should remember that some of the patents they have granted have been
|> for truly original and even exciting inventions.

True, some ideas are original and exciting. And, contrary to most of the
discussion here, the problem actually has nothing to do with whether some
patents are silly or not. The real problem is that the purpose of patents
is no longer being recognized. In a recent article Dave Camp posted the
following from the US Constitution:

> 8.  To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors exclusive rights to their
> respective writings and discoveries.

So the *real* question is, are patents promoting the progress of science
and useful arts? In my opinion, no. I think the LZW compression algorithm
would have been developed even if it couldn't be patented simply because
it is a useful tool. And I don't see that restricting its distribution
through licensing is contributing to progress either. The more it is
distributed, the more people learn about compression and more advances
will be made.

The purpose of patents is not to be fair to the individual (that is a
by-product). It is not to promote capitalism (that is also a by-product).
It is simply to provide incentives for the advancement of science. Any
argument that doesn't address this issue is misguided.

Of course, this discussion of absurd patents has served to light a fire
under some of those who needed it... 8-)

Devon