On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:39:23 +0100, Hadron wrote:
> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:20:47 -0000,
>> Rick <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:37:07 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:13:36 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <hfb085-skd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> It's FUD, pure and simple, and every time they try it, they should
>>>>>> be called on it. Put up, or shut up. Simple as that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet, for years, one of the big arguments for patent reform has been
>>>>> that companies like Microsoft get broad patents from a lax patent
>>>>> office, and that these cover much open source software.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, when Microsoft says THE SAME THING FREE SOFTWARE ADVOCATES
>>>>> HAVE SAID FOR YEARS, it becomes FUD with no factual basis? Huh?
>>>>
>>>> Linux advocates are a fickle bunch.
>>>>
>>>> They change their position like a leopard changes spots.
>>>
>>> Some do. Others don't.
>>>
>>>
>> My position on this is, and has been, that software patents are stupid,
>> and need to go. Whether it's MS holding them, or someone threatening MS
>> with one, they're bad law, and a bad idea.
>
> Why is it a bad idea to stop people stealing your expensively researched
> work?
Now, in modern times, it is nearly impossible to perform research without
building on the work of others.
The whole idea of copyrights and patents in the US was a compromise. It
granted a monopoly on ideas for a very short time in order for the writer
or inventor to make a living, so they could write and invent other
things. Again. It was a compromise. It was a way for the government to
make sure advances were funded without actually having the government
fund them.
IIRC, for past readings, both sides of the debates wanted to make sure
that knowledge passed to everyone.
--
Rick
|
|
