Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!uunet!infonode!ingr!b11!b11!mark
From: mark@b11.ingr (Mark Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Software patents
Message-ID: <MARK.91Mar5074728@b11.ingr>
Date: 5 Mar 91 12:47:28 GMT
References: <9102262229.AA07555@mole.ai.mit.edu> <990018@hpnmdla.HP.COM>
Sender: mark@b11.ingr.com (Mark Jones)
Organization: Over The Rainbow
Lines: 43
In-Reply-To: roger@hpnmdla.HP.COM's message of 1 Mar 91 19:53:54 GMT


   My $0.02:

   Software Patents should be allowed and granted, but their lifetime
   should be significantly reduced -- say, to 1 or 3 years -- depending
   on how novel the invention.

I disagree.  Software is merely a mathematical abstraction, it is not
an invention.  Software patents stifle progress, something the patent
laws were meant to help foster.

   This would reward the inventor with a head start, yet still allow the
   rest of the world to fully benefit from the innovation.  And it would
   encourage the inventor continue to innovate, instead of relying on 
   lawyers to protect their empire.

First to market, first to profit.  Nothing requires a programmer to
disclose how they did something.

   Even if you think that 1 to 3 years is still too long, you have to admit
   that it's a good first step toward a more reasonable patent system.

No it isn't.

   There's still a question of where to draw the fuzzy line between 
   hardware and software,

Read the FSF "Against Software Patents" paper, it makes a good start
toward drawing a line.

                          and on how to subjectively decide the lifetime
   of any given patent.  But you have to admit:  most "inventions" don't
   warrant a 17 year exclusivity right.

In our current day this is true.  In 17 years, most inventions are
obsolete.  This law needs some radical reform.


   Roger "Technical wars!  Not legal wars!" Petersen

On this we agree.

Mark Jones