🚀 go-pugleaf

burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:

>Roland,
>  You hit the nail on the head!!!!!  THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH SOFTWARE
>PATENTS!!! Most software patents deal with algorithms that are
>stupidly obvious to anyone in the software field, but *seem* unique
>to the patent office since they don't have the knowledge of the
>field. Since they *seem* unique and unobvious, and of course there
>would be *no* mention of this "unique" technique in the literature
>then it must be a valid invention and therefore patentable! Its
>CRAZY, but its true!! This is one way companies like IBM can control
>the computer field, they *own* about 9,000 of theses patents, and most
>smaller companies can't afford to go to court to challenge the
>patents, and they can't afford to pay the licensing fee...so they
>spend time re-inventing the wheel...but, according to the idea of
>patents, this promotes research and development and inovation...yeah,
>it does promote inovation, to see how many different ways you can
>increment a number by one...

If a software patent dealt with a NON-OBVIOUS solution to a problem,
in which experts in the field would generally NOT be able to quickly
come up with a solution, then I can see merit in granting such a patent.

Let's not attack the notion of patenting SOFTWARE or algorithms specifically,
but rather let's attach the fact that the patent office is issuing patents
on OBVIOUS things that happen to be described or implemented in terms of a
field (software) they are not capable of determining obvious from non-obvious.

The problem is not patenting SOFTWARE, the problem is patenting OBVIOUS.
-- 
 /***************************************************************************\
/ Phil Howard -- KA9WGN -- phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu   |  Guns don't aim guns at  \
\ Lietuva laisva -- Brivu Latviju -- Eesti vabaks  |  people; CRIMINALS do!!  /
 \***************************************************************************/