🚀 go-pugleaf

Bernie Cosell (cosell@bbn.com) says:
[Are you suggesting] 
> that we should unlock America's creativity with a constitutional amendment
> to undo patenting?

The Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to legislate
copyright and patent protection, for the common interest.  The Constitution
does not require that there be copyright or patent protection at all.  If,
in a particular arena, there is no common good to be served, then Congress
is free to not extend patent protection to that aspect of a work.  No
constitutional amendment is required, just an ordinary bill.

Bruce Karsh (karsh@sgi.com) says:
> Joe Buck (jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu) says:
> >  That's because algorithms, for the most part,
> >are discovered rather than invented.  This distinction was established
> >in law by the founders of the country (you can't patent mathematical
> >relationships or laws of nature)
> 
> This is clearly nonsense.  Patents weren't even invented in the US.

Joe is correct on both counts; "laws of nature", "mental steps", and some
other things are specifically forbidden to be patented.

I don't understand what Bruce is trying to say here; his second sentence is
a non sequitur.  The concept of tort isn't indigenous to the US, either.
Does that mean we should pay a royalty to England every time a negligence
case is tried?  This is an odd concept of "invention", indeed.

					-Michael Ernst
					 mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu