Which is very unfair for those who have great ideas. You know the circuitry for making efficient car engines? It may easily be duplicated by software if it is not already. Some millions of dollars research just to give it away to the competitor. Why bother making clean engines? But we want them, so have make people do the research if they don´t get anything back?
Another thing is, of course, that we in Norway have found lots of new oil resources the past few months. Mostly due to software developed by seismic companies where the sensors themselves are well known. Why would they make these investments of the next (mostly likely US) company could just use the same idea. Our economy is certainly dependent on partially software relates, very complex, inventions. No, your theory works for small software inventions, but those are not the complete picture. You need a better definition. Another thing is, of course, that computer programs may be implemented as hardware... DagT Den 28. aug. 2012 kl. 23:31 skrev steve harley: > on 2012-08-28 12:48 DagT wrote >> In the about 20 years I have been discussing this with people who are >> opposed to software patents nobody has ever found a fair definition. If you >> cannot forbid what you cannot define. :-) > > that's easy — let them get the patent, but if something is implemented in > software, it can't be held to violate the patent > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
