Charles: All patents, really? While I'm perfectly fine accepting that reasonable minds may differ as to software and business method patents (or hell, even Design patents on fonts), do you really dismiss the entire patent enterprise? In other words, was the patent granted for the telephone (#174465) equally as useless as an incentive as say, the patent for painting a picture with the posterior of an infant (#6213778)?
;) On 7/27/07, Charles Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 7/26/07, Venkatesh Hariharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I cannot think of anything more immoral than patents on surgical > procedures. > > Really? Wow. How about the Armenian Genocide, Stalin's starvation of > the Ukraine, the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, Pol Pot in Cambodia, > Rwanda, or the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia? > > Hyperbole is all fine and good, but it also has the effect of > trivializing and devaluing things for which the terms are actually > appropriate. > > > This is what happens when the trend of commoditising and pricing > knowledge > > goes too far. > > Are you equating patents and markets? > > Don't get me wrong. I hate patents on intellectual property, and I > personally both decline to file them and offer to assist the companies > I work for in fighting them (for example providing DEC with examples > of prior art when defending against bogus patent claims.) However I > think you weaken our case by confounding arguments against patents > with arguments against IP in general. > > A matter of style perhaps, so take my comments as a suggestion or an > indication of how your arguments may come across even to people who > agree with you. > > -- Charles > >
