🚀 go-pugleaf

In Reply to this Note From: <A.V. Le Blanc>
>
>Barry Shein writes
>
>> I've learned that algorithms
>> that seem simple to computer people may not be seen the same way by
>> others (such as, perhaps, courts).
>
>I have often wondered, as a philosopher of programming, whether part
>of the problem is the lack of agreement on the part of programmers
>about just what constitutes stealing.
>
>I mention this because, while I agree that certain instances of
>hoarding and patent-waving are outrageous, and while I can shout
>slogans as loudly as my neighbour, I am by no means ready to state
>clearly and accurately all the principles which I believe should
>govern sensible laws and sensible activity in this field.
>
>For example, many Americans seem to assume that it is wrong to
>control algorithms.  In Britain algorithms can be patented, and
>are.  I don't like to see algorithms kept secret, but isn't it
>at least arguable that patents encourage making such things
>public.  Moreover, I am uncertain as to whether I agree or disagree
>with the `law of nature' interpretation.
>
>Comments?

The issue is, are software patents good for the economy?  The pro is
that the promise of a patent will provide an incentive for people to be
inventive.  The con is that many of these techniques will be developed
on multiple occasions independantly, making it innappropriate for only
one person to hold the patent.  In addition, the entire technical
industry, no just the software industry, is progressing at a much
greater rate than when the patent law was designed.  Many techniques
become obsolete by the time the patent expires, completely erasing the
benefit of disclosure to society.

There is also something to be said for keeping algorithms free.  Suppose
that every calculator manufacturer had to pay a royalty for the use of
the 'Sine' function.  Not only would it raise the cost of calculators,
but also discourage smaller companies from introducing low-cost market
entries.  Now consider what happens when 'Cosine', 'Log', and
'Factorial' become patented, each by a separate inventor.  The
complexity of producing calculators has been made ridiculous by the
legal tangles and patent searches.

I suppose that the examples I gave are not algorithms per se, but the
situation is exactly what is being faced in the industry today.
As a non-lawyer programmer, I frankly have no idea what I can and cannot
do.  I am scared that a program that I innocently code from prior
knowledge will subject me to a lawsuit.  -David-

>
>A. V. Le Blanc
>University of Manchester
>

david%wubios@wugate.wustl.edu         ^         David J. Camp
...!uunet!wugate!wubios!david       < * >       314-382-0584
                                      v
"Concentration impedes Inspiration." --- "Depend on God, who has dominion."