On Apr 11, 2005 4:59 PM, Michael O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Todd Walton wrote: > > Protected from whom? Protected *by* whom? > From those who would benefit financially from all the hard work done (the > whole point of a patent system) without some sort of remuneration (license > fees) > > > Why do you think the patent system should exclude software? > Becoz software is just mathematics, and mathematics are explicitly excluded > from being patentable.
So, do you worry about how mathematicians will be protected from others using their work without compensation? Your use of the word "protected" makes me think that you see it as a right, i.e. as an ideological issue. If that's the case, then it's government's role to make that happen. But your answer to the second question makes it sound like you view it as a practical issue. I guess the third way is that it *is* ideological, that a person *does* have the right to dictate the terms of use of software that they produce, but that the way the government currently does it is wrong/inefficient. The way I tend to view it is that information cannot be "property". A person cannot squat on 1s and 0s like they can on dirt. That's what's wrong, but I'm not certain what's right. So, if software shouldn't be patentable because it's like math, then why shouldn't software development be like math research in other ways? -todd -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
