This is semi-political, so when I have the new list up it will go there. Eric, you are right. Patents are used as weapons. I don't doubt that for a second. (Do note that I'm not limiting myself to software patents here.) The quesiton though is this: Is there a better way? Without patents, many, if not most, innovative ideas will remain inside a company as a trade secret. We will have to rely entirely on people reverse engineering implementations to get to the original idea. Every idea! Even if at the time there was no solid commercial interest to reverse engineer. Otherwise, when an inventor or company disappears then society loses that new idea.
That's very risky to me. The whole basis for a patent is that we, as a society, would rather grant an inventor a temporary monopoly than risk losing a lot of innovative ideas because they were retained as trade secrets and not properly documented for public use after a patent expired. A patent is just an incentive for a company to release a trade secret to the public. Sure, companies are going to use patents as weapons, and we certainly need to correct patent law, but the basic premise is good in my opinion. --- Puryear Information Technology, LLC Baton Rouge, LA * 225-706-8414 http://www.puryear-it.com Author of "Best Practices for Managing Linux and UNIX Servers" Download your free copy: http://www.puryear-it.com/bestpractices.htm ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric G Ortego To: General at brlug.net Sent: Friday, October 14, 2005 4:20 PM Subject: Re: [brlug-general] to release or not to release,intellectual retentiveness. On 10/9/05, Dustin Puryear <dpuryear at usa.net> wrote: Patents and copyrights have different objectives. You can't really lump both into a single argument. Patents serve to expose trade secrets so that they aren't lost if an inventor dies or a company goes belly-up and also releasing new ideas into the wild after some set time, while copyrights serve to deter, well, the ability to copy a given work. On Patents: They might serve that purpose but they are actually a grant of a property right. And if you will, the right of shoot to kill If I see you on my land, should you "choose" to trespass. My grandfather, who was a fisherman most all of his life, applied for a patent on an innovative invention of his (called it the ding-a-ling). He ran trout lines when fishing bayous, and floating lines when in lakes. His idea was forged from the mess that would occur when picking up the lines and allowing the hooks to entangle themselves within the string. Instead of using some of the costly devices that would let you slide each hook into a sort of hook closet on a rail trying to keep the stringer all nicely wound, he created thousands of little hook sheaths made with pieces of tube and drinking straws. Simply slide the hook into the tube then push the straw into place to secure the hook in. This way he could just throw the entire stringer into a bucket and hang the hooks on the edge. When re-running the lines he just had to find one end and run the line, un-sheath the hooks while baiting. Didn't hook himself nearly as often, he said. His patent was denied because of existing patents. Seeing as how he had spent a lifetime fishing(he was about 60 when he made the first bunch) without having ever seen such a thing I conclude that it had to be original, innovative, and the previous idea certainly wasn't in the wild. I'm on the fence when it comes to software patents. I certainly see an abuse of patents right now. How about in the future? Gene patenting! Yay... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.htmlFTA:"Whilethisdoesnotquiteboildown to [the patent holders] owning ourgenes ?theserightsexcludeus fromusingour genes for those purposes thatarecoveredinthepatent,"Perhaps weshouldshorten software patentstosomethingthatworksbetterLike 0.(But Icertainlysupport the idea of apatent inmostotherrealms.)Why should a cleanroomimplementation ofsomething similarbeintheviolation of such apropertyright?Why then whenthepatenteddevice/ideaisn't being manufactured,sold,ortalked about? Isupposethislends to thedefence of acleanroomimplementation but it Idon't thinkitprevents theholderfromwastingtheir(enemies?) time andresources.Patentsarebecomingtheloadedweapons.1) patent2) wait3) sue &Profit!Why shouldsomepatentgovernmentdecidewhat is and isn'tinnovative?How could theyevenknow? Idon't think thatathink tank likeGoogle coulddo an accurateenoughjob.Theway I see itpatentsserve toadvance greed.Money is only worthwhatvalue wegive it. IMHOtimeandknowledge arepriceless.I think that wearecausingwastes oftimeandpromoting limits to knowledgebyallowingtoday'sscientists,educators,andcraftsmen to burden theirsuccessorswithmonetaryvalues onarchaictheory,ideas, and tools.I don't like patentsatall, Iunderstandthereasoningbehind themIsimplythinktheyarebadideas._______________________________________________GeneralmailinglistGeneral at brlug.nethttp://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
