M. Fioretti wrote:
Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all possible patents in every field, didn't you?
I used the word "idea" and "idea" is precisely what I mean. Ideas are not constrained to software. If I draw a painting about a dragon, I should not be able to prevent you from drawing your own painting about a dragon, even though that's not an algorithm, or software.
Patents were born as monopolies over real _inventions_, not ideas. You could patent a physical, working prototype of bulb lamps or antigravity engines,
If you invent a new light bulb or an antigravity engine I should be able to use the ideas behind them to make my own bulb and antigravity engine. I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work. If you take a beautiful photograph of half-dome I understand if you don't want me to make copies of it. But I can still go to half-dome myself and take my own photograph.
Today the concept is wildly and frequently abused, no doubt, but that's no reason to negate its validity, when applied properly, is it?
I question the general validity of patents. Suppose you design a better keyboard, so that it's much easier to learn. Should you be granted a monopoly on making keyboards with that design? I don't think so. You are free to disagree. We can just agree to disagree on that.
Cheers, Daniel. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
