Hsuan-Yeh:
You just introduced changed the wording from "should be" to "are", and
that means you're now arguing against a claim that nobody in this
conversation has made.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:58:36PM -0700, you wrote:
However, it doesn't necessarily mean that all software patents should be
invalid.
On 9/27/2011 7:47 PM, Derek wrote:
No it doesn't; there are much, much better arguments why all software
patents should be invalid.
On 9/28/2011 2:16 AM, you wrote:
Thanks Derek for this great video. I took the time to listen to the whole clip. With
all my respect to RMS, I have to say he did not make a good case on "why all
software patents are invalid."
RMS is not arguing that all software patents */are/* invalid. If
anything, he's arguing that, because they are valid under the existing
legal system, they're an enormous threat to America's ability to
innovate. That's because they squelch the majority of true innovators:
the small software developers. They turn software development into a
cynical game that can only be played by those who can afford to pay to play.
Stallman also makes a convincing argument that invention in the world of
software is a fundamentally different undertaking than invention in, for
example, the world of pharmaceuticals. His analogy between the creative
process a composer would use when writing a symphony and the creative
process programmers use when writing software really makes it clear just
how different software is from other kinds of invention that are tied to
the physical universe.
Mark Rosenthal
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
