__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Saturday 19 August 2006 21:44 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> Phipps calls for patent reform
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| "The real issue is that today's software patents breach the social
>>| contract on which the concept of a patent is based," Phipps wrote.
>>| "I'm convinced that the reform that's needed is a root-and-branch reform
>>| of the very concept of the patent, carried out in the light of the facts
>>| that the network is the computer and that open source is its soul."
>> `----
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=752
>
>
> Can't disagree with that; patents are anachronistic in the software
> world, something new is required.
Patents are probably better (most?) suited for the pharmaceutical industry,
where millions or billions of dollars (a lot of R, a little bit of D) are
invested to discover and develop a simple drug/cure.
In software, on the other hand, you would probably speak about very simple
ideas or conceptual methods (e.g. recursion? Basic feature? Menu item?). But
they are simple if they are patentable (or else there would be no clash,
i.e. no royalties justified, which beats the purpose).
But patents are /still/... simpler. Simpler even than the idea which involves
manufacturing a valve. What's more, few people have the capacity to produce
valves (mass-producing in particular), unless it's a company with resources.
Software, on the other hand, can be written by a lonesome boy in a garage.
Distribution, as opposed to development, is cheap. So are you going to
restrict some guy who works at momma's garage for making use of basic
concepts (and usually making no profit either)?
|
|
