This opens a very real can of worms and probably isn't a conversation
we should have here. Having acknowledged that, let me add my two cents.
First, my background. I have a law degree. I specialized in
intellectual property law. I've written, prosecuted and defended
several software patents without taking the Bar exam. I've decided
not to become a practicing attorney.
<rave>
Second, I have become unalterably opposed to software patents.
Copyright provides adequate protection for what programmers do for
the most part. A unique algorithm (process) should be eligible for
patent protection, but nothing else. I have NEVER seen a software
patent application that didn't fail -- in my mind and with my
background in programming -- the test of non-obviousness that is at
the heart of patent protection in the U.S. The U.S. Patent &
Trademark Office (PTO) has for years taken the position that it will
largely grant all but the most outlandish software patent
applications and let the courts sort things out. But at the end of it
all, I just see patent as the wrong way to protect software
innovation. It hurts everyone and helps nobody.
</rave>
Dan
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
