In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 06/21/2006
at 08:23 AM, Charles Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>At the risk of getting flamed, I would like to respectfully disagree
>with the apparent majority opinion on this list that all software
>patents are bad, that the fact that software can be patented is a bad
>thing.
I agree with you in principle, but it would be better to have no
patents at all than to allow patents for prior art and for things
obvious to practitioners, but theoretically prohibited. If the patent
examiners are unable to do their jobs then we should shut down the
PTO.
>Why does IP protection (patent, copyright, TM, and trade secrets)
>exist? It is so that people can be rewarded for their creativity.
Not in the US. It exists to promote the development of the useful
arts, at least in the case of copyrights and patents.
>However there is an even simpler reform available, that is less
>discussed: shorten the term of software patents.
Not just software. The US Constitution specifies a "limited time", and
Congress has ridden roughshod over that.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
