Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!jarthur!usc!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Patents and Architecture Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 90 12:01:43 GMT References: <62864@sgi.sgi.com> <=Y943A7@xds13.ferranti.com> <37297@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <63007@sgi.sgi.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 15 In article <63007@sgi.sgi.com> karsh@trifolium.sgi.com (Bruce Karsh) writes: > If Apple didn't have intellectual property protection > on the Macintosh, I think they'd probably be out of business today. This is a straw man, Bruce. Nobody is arguing that there shouldn't be patents or copyrights or trade secret protections on software. They're arguing about a certain class of patented and/or copyrighted ideas. There are some things that are genuinely innovative (for example, the RSA algorithm or the setuid bit, or windowing in the first place), and others that are obvious to any competant practitioner in the field but... because the field is so new... seem to have gotten past the patent office. XOR for cursors, split-screen, and so on. I would suggest that you read Feynman's autobiography, in particular the part where he is awarded the patent for the nuclear rocket. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.