On 6/2/07, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't this a definition of what constitutes "work" and "property"? I
think there's little doubt that intellectual work should be considered a form of work. And intellectual property seems to be a reasonable way of rewarding inventors -- think of other forms of patents such as Edison's patent of the light bulb, that also restricted others from copying; so why should software be an exception to this?
As I said before, I am commenting only on the industry with which I am
familiar. If you want to know whether patents are on balance good or bad in electrical engineering, ask an electrical engineer. Software patents are good in the software field in the same way that engineering patents are good in the engineering field. My argument is that the situations are analogous. You have not demonstrated a qualitative difference as to why software patents should be treated as a special case.
> Also, please remember that patents do not completely "prevent" people
from practicing something -- licensing is always an option.
Assuming you intend to write a nontrivial program, are you planning to pay
a license fee for every patent your program infringes? No? Didn't think so. If you set out to do that, the project would of course be utterly hopeless; you'd be as well off spending your time getting stoned and hoping the altered state of consciousness put you in telepathic communication with friendly aliens. That seems to be a bit exaggerated: I don't think my AGI design infringes on many patents -- many algorithms I *know* are in public domain. I can also point to cases where licensing of technologies does occur and is successful. YKY ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
