🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul16.211832.6685@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> phil@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Phil Howard KA9WGN) writes:
>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
>>
>>[...]
>
>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!!  /
> \***************************************************************************/

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...


John


+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Burton                                                        |
| G & A Technical Software                                           |
| jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov                                       |
| burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov                                        |
| jcburt@cs.wm.edu                                                   |
|                                                                    |
| Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those  |
|             of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+