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?
You don't need software patents for that
Pray tell, why isn't "expensively researched work" stolen more often in
europe, where there are no patents on software?
Because it might be protected by other means just as well perhaps?
--
There are two kinds of people in this world: the kind that divides
everybody into two kinds of people, and everybody else
|
|
