Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!voder!pyramid!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Some 1987 patents of interest
Keywords: Patents
Message-ID: <352@laic.UUCP>
Date: 3 Oct 88 23:39:39 GMT
References: <5511@hoptoad.uucp> <16406@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Reply-To: darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson)
Organization: Lockheed AI Center, Menlo Park
Lines: 29

In article <16406@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> casey@cs.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom) writes:
>  But the story demonstrates the point I'm trying to make, which is in
>fact simply a question:
>
>	Do patents stifle progress?

Originally, patents were designed to promote progress, rather than stifle
it.  Without patents, you would risk a lot to publish any invention, since
anyone could legally copy your idea.  In fact, if you start selling your
invention, people can copy you to their hearts content.
In order to promote exchange of ideas, patents were setup to allow inventions
to be published, but with a certain time period during which only the
inventor (and licensed parties) could market the inventions.  The time
period involved was long enough for most patent holders to develop their
inventions and get a foot into door of the market before the rest of the
world is allowed to copy their ideas (but not so long that the patent
holder gets a virtual monopoly).

However, in the computer industry, the length of patents (I don't remember
what it is, 7 or 15 years perhaps) is so long, that the technology is
pretty much out of date by the time the patent expires.  This seems
to run counter to the original purpose of patents (if my description
above is accurate).

Comments?

Darin Johnson (...pyramid.arpa!leadsv!laic!darin)
              (...ucbvax!sun!sunncal!leadsv!laic!darin)
	"All aboard the DOOMED express!"