On 10/26/2011 11:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:45:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
would
otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the
fruits of
your invention.
I think, this can work for software the same way.
You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
copyright protects your IP.
But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is
difficult.
If you don't sell it, then there should be no point of patenting it. You
have much better protection by keeping it secret...
But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle
innovation. It creates artificial barriers that only exist because
people have gamed the system.
-Steve
You are right.
