🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> As long as this state of affairs continues to exist, please quit
> complaining about those who HAVE patents and wish to protect them.

We will continue to complain, thank you.  Not everything which is legal is
also moral, ethical, or civil behavior.

The fact that the patent office will grant ridiculous patents does not
make them just.

The misuse of patent laws in order to extract money for the use of
blatantly obvious techniques does not fall within the definition of
"protection" of ownership.  A better phrase might be "legalized
extortion."

> If Mark Williams owns the patent on byte ordering, so be it.  THEY
> HAVE THE RIGHT to protect their patent which they appear to be doing.

And we have the right to raise hell about it...which we intend to do.

If the allegations reported here--that the patent exists for essentially
what has been described (use of single byte ordering), and that it is being
used to demand royalty payments--then I would hope Mark Williams will be
added to the FSF "boycott list" soon.
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...Simpler is better.