🚀 go-pugleaf

waters@nddsun1.sps.mot.com (Mike Waters) writes, inter alia:

> Frankly I fail to see why getting paid for original work is so upsetting
> to some people.

For many of us, the objection is *not* to the idea that someone should get
paid for original work, but to the idea the we should have to pay someone
else for the right to do original work.

Patent law is utterly blind to the idea of independent invention:  If you
independently rediscover an idea which has been patented (or is in the
process of being patented--something you can't find out!), tough luck--you
pay.

Patent law does acknowledge the concepts of prior art and obvious ideas--
but only in principle.  That is, in principle you cannot patent something
someone's already doing, nor can you patent an idea which would be obvious
to a practitioner in your field (there will no doubt be at least ten
followups quoting the exact legal phrasing for me, so I won't try).  But
in practice there *have* been patents granted for obvious techniques and/or
techniques with ample prior art.  (I DO NOT know whether the AT&T patent
involved in the current flap fits this description.)

Independent invention is common (TOO common!:-) in software, so the proper
recognition of "original work" is exceedingly difficult.  (There are
various other problems with software patents, such as the lengthy approval
cycle during which the existence of the patent app remains secret, the
ludicrous duration of the patent, and the apparent cluelessness of the US
Patent Office w.r.t. software.)
-- 
Dick Dunn     rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd       Boulder, CO   (303)449-2870
   ...But is it art?