🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4893@network.ucsd.edu} mbk@jacobi.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
}In article <878@nddsun1.sps.mot.com> waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes:

}>You repeat that assertion over and over, but never explain how it will
}>happen. You also fail to explain why Ham Radio (and a dozen similar
}>hobbies) continue to thrive despite being in fields that allow patents.
}
}A ham radio reciever could conceivably infringe on maybe 5 circuit design
}patents, at most perhaps.  There are only a few different things that
}a radio reciever can possibly do, and in each submodule, most of the circuit
}topologies will be mutually exclusive.

You really should learn something about thesubject before you emote like
this! THere are several thousand circuit design patents issued, a modern
ham radio receiver/transceiver will use techniques from just about every
discipline - digital, analog signal processing, computer control etc.,
etc.. Get an issue of QST (its likely in your local library) and look at
the Yaesu, Kenwood, or Icom ads.

}Contrast to computer software:  the possible spaces of programs is far
}larger than that of all radio recievers (but not necessarily all electronic
}circuits), and more importantly, is composed of hundreds or even thousands
}of potentially patentable parts or methods.  I mean, when you make a ham
}radio, do you have to research all possible patents on the possible ways
}to manufacture transistors of a certain type, the patents on the processes
}needed to extract the raw materials used in your solder?  If you make
}ham radio recievers, you look up patents on "ham radio recievers", naturally.

No more than you have to look up every possible software patent to write
a program to control the lights in your house or the next Space
Invaders. Your argument simply is not true.

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

Not possible because only inventions can be patented!

}It is because software
}is frequently created and recreated from nothing, with essentially
}only intellectual powers that makes it inherently different from other
}endeavors that are presently patentable.  

That sounds a lot like the way a new circuit design for say a satellite
receiver is designed. The design of hardware and software is extremely
similar, it is only the actual manufacture that shows differences.

}If software is patentable, then why isn't mathematics?  There is no
}real distinction.

Have you ever tried to fly an airplane with only a set of log tables in
place of the controls? Software produces commercially useful results. 

}The last reason I oppose software patents is sociological.  Much of the
}standard practice of engineering and science and mathematics is based upon
}the published and unpatented work of academic and government scientists.
}In comparison, much of the standard practice of programming and engineering
}(I don't mean "computer science"---which is often math) comes from a vigorous
}commercial sector, which is more likely to attempt to file patents.  
}Scientific & Engineering companies of course do file patents, but in
}general for much more focused and specific applications than for software.
}So the overall cost to society does not overwhelm the benefit to the firm.

Is this supposed to be an argument? All I see is statements of opinion.

Patents are intended for commercially useful inventions in whatever
field. 

}Remember, these aren't absolute arguments against software patents.  

No comment. :-)

}But
}also realize that there isn't an "inalienable right" to a patent---it is a
}law of Congress, designed to be in society's best interest.  (Yes I know
}that the existence of patents is guaranteed by the Constitution, but Congress
}has final say on its implementation).  I strongly believe that society's
}best interest is not served by patents on software and mathematics.  

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

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

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

Patents are one way to maintain that balance.



-- 
           *Mike Waters    AA4MW/7  waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com *
Marriage is the only adventure open to the cowardly.
		-- Voltaire