Joshua Zeidner wrote:
> Software patents were explicitly prohibited until relatively
> recently. Shows you how quickly lobbying efforts can erode the
> concepts on which justice relies.
Hmm, guess I'll have to read more b/c I didn't think that was true. I thought
it was algorithms and certain processes that weren't patentable. But anyway...
>> Sadly, there's no outrage from our the citizens of the US to their
>> representatives so that something would get done. I guess they're too worried
>> about a women wound up dead in FL or some other silliness....
>
> The patent system is changing btw...
There hasn't been any 'real action' (passing changes to the law) AFAICT --
talk is just so much politics.
> some have discussed changing
> the legal structure to shift liabilities on the filing entity, so if
> you do file for a obvious or redundant patent, you may be liable for a
> fine or other penalty. In my view, however, this will make patents
> even less accessible for individuals.
Right, exactly. The bottom line is that patents should be much reduced --
innovation and competition would explode and the federal government could be
reduced in size -- ok it would be like taking a dropper out of the ocean, but
we need to start somewhere ;-)
> At one point I was fiercely
> opposed to patents, but if we hope to 'foster the arts' you need some
> level of ownership and province.
Hmm, I think the development of the computer/software/networking businesses
shows exactly how powerful a system with little patent encumberment can be.
People contribute serious and real work for many reasons besides making a
buck. And people that want to make money can play as well. With software,
there are ways to keep it proprietary, if they so desire, without patents.
Anyway, I'm not saying we should abolish all patents, but software patents,
for sure. Patents on 'biological entities' that are a fact of nature is
completely ridiculous. Just think about all the things that have built entire
new industries in the last 20 years -- things like: standard open programming
languages, networking standards from ethernet to wifi, web standards, etc,
etc. Many of these things took significant time and effort to develop. But
their real value was when they were released for everyone to use.
As an example, consider C/C++. AT&T spent real money on research and growing
these languages -- lots of innovation, but wisely, they gave them away to the
industry. Someone smart there realized that if they were going to bet their
products on these languages they didn't want to be the only ones using them.
They wanted a community to grow and extend them. Without C, there pretty much
wouldn't be computers as we know them today -- and when C became an ISO
standard, it really took things up a notch. Open, well-defined, lots of
vendors supporting and competing.
The other thing we should think about the length of patents....in a world of
constant innovation like exists today, 17-20 years is an unbelievably long
time. 20 years ago our industry was in the stone ages (yes, I'm old enough to
know) -- just imagine if every invention in the last 20 years in programming
languages, operating systems, etc was patented -- no one could do anything
without licensing hundreds of 'innovations'. Indeed, I think that if we would
have been patent encumbered in a serious way there'd be many fewer programming
jobs because software wouldn't have been able to pervade virtually every
industry on the planet. And the world would certainly have suffered.
> I don't want to sound like a broken record, as I wrote a rather
> long post on NYLUG about this. Please check out Bruce Perens, he has
> done a lot of work in Patent criticism, and he deserves recognition
> for it. Also thanks to Joseph Sinclair for the lucid comments.
Ok, I'll stop ranting now too :-)
Jeff
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)