🚀 go-pugleaf

pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
> Seriously, as the FSF might also use patents in the same way as it uses
> copyrights, to ensure that certain designs can circulate freely instead
> of being hoarded.
>
> Suppose that you do not patent your algorithm; somebody else later can
> rediscover and patent it, and then *you* have to sue the somebody and
> prove that you had prior art. If you preempt this by getting a patent
> and then licensing it for free (to everybody that promises to use it
> only in copyleft sources, or under similar conditions), this becomes
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> much more difficult, because at the very least your work will turn up in
> a patent search and subsequent hoarders will have their claim rejected
> by the Patent Office (hopefully).

I hope that this is a joke. Patenting basic ideas, and then saying that people
can only use them if they're willing to give their software away for free in
source form, would be a monstrous imposition on individual freedom of choice.

It would make the FSF guilty of exactly the same sort of bullying that they
are accusing the big corporations of.

Now, if you want to patent ideas and then make them free for everyone to use
with no strings attached, then I think that that is a great idea and I wish
you the best of luck.


mathew.
[ AT&T think they invented backing store in _1985_?!  Maybe such a stupid
  patent claim will help to show up how stupid the entire system is. Mind
  you, if the patent on exclusive-or graphics cursors didn't do it... ]
--
Internet: mathew@mantis.co.uk / mathew%mantis.co.uk@ukc.ac.uk
    UUCP: mathew@mantis.UUCP / ...!mcsun!ukc!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew