On Aug 30, 2012, at 1:18 AM, DagT wrote: > > Den 30. aug. 2012 kl. 09:49 skrev Joseph McAllister <pentax...@mac.com>: > >> >> On Aug 28, 2012, at 10:04 , Larry Colen wrote: >> >>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 7:17 AM, Charles Robinson wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 28, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >>>>> I will agree that the goatse zoom is a clever idea, but being software >>>>> should not be patentable. >>>> >>>> "…but being software, should not be patentable"? Did you really just say >>>> that? >>> >>> Yes I did. I am firmly opposed to the concept of software patents. >>> Mathematical formulas are not patentable. Sentence constructions are not >>> patentable. All patent portfolios do is block smaller companies out of the >>> marketplace. >> >> Unfu*kingbelievable. > > And untrue. We use patents the opposite way, to get into markets dominated by > larger companies (or make them but the ringt for a good price). > > DagT
Dag, I will agree that there are good and worthwhile uses of patents. And will even admit that there are cases where you can convince me that software patent may give "the little guy" some added protection. My experience, however, has been of the power & money feedback loop, where laws and the system is changed to benefit those with money, giving them more power to make more money. There are too many things which are patented, that shouldn't be, and far too many patent trolls. Overall the whole patent system seems to be doing far more harm than good. I will concede that it would be possible to devise a set of conditions where doing something in software is indeed patentable, but that would almost certainly end up being a case where doing something in software is just a special case of something that is otherwise patentable. -- Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est -- 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.
