🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <900@nddsun1.sps.mot.com>, Mike Waters (mw) writes:

In article <4893@network.ucsd.edu} mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: 

mk> This is the type }of burden that would be placed upon programmers
mk> were software patents of commonly used procedures to become
mk> widespread.

mw> Not possible because only inventions can be patented!

But there seems to be nobody out there rejecting patents based on
their obviousness/prior art. To all apearences, the patent office will
grant a patent on absolutly anything, having no experts in CS, and the
only way to get rid of them is a court case. Dunno about you, but _I_
am not about to get into a court battle with the next milti-billion
dollar company which decides to patent the linked list.

mk> At a minimum, the term of patents in these disciplines should be
mk> radically reduced (say to 3 years), on account of their rapid pace
mk> of innovation.

mw> What about the right (best interests) of the inventor?

What rights of the inventor would be violated even by totally
eliminating patents? A patent is just a government granted monopoly,
no different from a govenment grant to a monopoly of, say, the wool
trade. There was a time when it was though that this served the public
good, by encouraging inventors to publish and to put their inventions
into the public domain after a fixed time. I think that is no longer
true. However even if you disagree, I would like to hear why you think
people have a _right_ to deprive other people _their_ right to create
and be rewarded for it.

mw> The US Constitution was founded on the premise that the rights of
mw> the INDIVIDUAL must balance those of "the state", "society", "the
mw> public" or whatever name you want to use.

mw> Patents are one way to maintain that balance.

On the contrary, patents are a way for society to remove the rights of
individuals, notionaly for the greater good. 

--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk