On 4/10/06, V. B. Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steven H. McCown wrote: > > I've found it difficult to understand why some have started to dislike > > patents so intensely -- when they have been a tenant of US business society > > for 100's of years.
The kinds of corruption and extortion that patents allow/encourage have been a part of US business society for 100's of years. Recently disgust over patents has intensified because what is patentable has been greatly broadened and the number of opportunistic litigants and extortionists has greatly increased. > following simple test that I learned in second grade applies here: If > you can hold it or touch it with your hand, it is concretely physical > (traditionally patentable); if you can hold it in your thoughts and can > make symbols on paper to represent it but can't physically touch it, > then it is abstract (copyright-able and trademark-able, but not patentable). Trying to define what is patentable or copyrightable is a tricky proposition. I'm not convinced that excluding abstract ideas from patentability (as absurd and dangerous as that seems), including software, is justifiable from an ideal perspective. Better to eliminate patents altoghtether than allow someone to patent the ideas in my head, but I'm willing to listen to reason beyond my own as to whether excluding abstract ideas from patentability is justified. Much evil can come from going too far either way, from no patents or copyrights to everything is patentable and copyrightable from very long periods of duration to ad infinitum. Sadly I think our society is gradually drifting toward the latter. Justin _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
