🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Mar.5.16.20.00.1991.1026@reason.ig.com> mcb@reason.ig.com (Michael C. Berch) writes:
>In the referenced article, mjohnsto@admin8780.shearson.com 
>(Mike Johnston) writes:
>> waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes:
>>    Frankly I fail to see why getting paid for original work is so upsetting
>>    to some people.
>> 
>> This is not a flame. I agree that original work should be rewarded but there
>> are some things that are so fundamental to an industry that patents should
>> not be allowed. As an extreme example let's say you are a car manufacturer
>> and want to get an edge on your competitors. A quick check with your
>> legal office reveals VOILA! the *wheel* was NEVER patented!!!!! Naturally,
>> if you are the anti-competitive sort you'll run right down to the patent
>> office and put a lock on it and immediately begin to demand royalties from
>> anyone who uses a wheel in their product.
>>
>> Extreme? Yes, [...]
>
>And completely impossible as well.  One of the statutory requirements
>of patentability is that the invention be "nonobvious".  A technique
>(or device or application of a substance, etc.) that would be known to
>a competent practitioner in the field is not patentable.  The work must
>be an original departure from prior art; the demonstration of the
>existence of wheels for a significant period of history would make
>patenting the wheel or similar devices impossible.
>Michael C. Berch
>mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb

One of the problems with this obvious business is IMHO the fact that whats
obvious to one person is not obvious to another ...

Or else we would be all rewriting the relativity laws :-) :-)

One of the major problems in my point of view is that I find very hard to
grant a software patent with a right criteria.

It is relatively easy to deny a software patent for a very well known procedure
( like the wheel case ) but I find much more difficult to adress the problem
of a positive answer ( and some cases have shown that this is not an easy
job ).

And I repeat my original statement: Even if that is possible it would require
an enourmous amount of highly qualified working force. Those man and women would
be better employed elsewhere ... like in finding new software techniques . 

Oh and by the way, judging by what I've read of a software patent I must say
two things:

- The text is horrendous and for me the English of it is barely comprehensible.
Yes English is NOT my native language and yes I know the thing about the one
sentence ... which brings me two my second point.

- These resembles too much the kind of burocratic things that I detest. I find
the time spent that way completely useless. 

I for one would rather die ( or read a Dan Quayle speach :-) :-) ) then 
reading such a piece of prose .

The more this discussion goes on the more I'm convinced that the actual system
of patents is a completely nuisance and the money spend whith it would be
better employed in granting awards to those who innovate in the field.   
--
Fernando Manuel Hourtiguet de Vasconcelos  INESC - Instituto de Engenharia de
fmhv@inesc.inesc.pt                                Sistemas e Computadores
mcsun!inesc!fmhv@uunet.uu.net          Rua Alves Redol No 9, sala 208
Tel: +351(1)545150   Ext. 216          Apartado 10105