"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka@localhost.localdomain... > On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <s...@here.lot> wrote: > >> Chante Wrote: >> >>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the >>> knowledge to >>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind >>> as a >>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for viral >>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now the >>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government >>> are >>> on one side, humanity on the other. >> >> Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is >> equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going >> to succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent claims >> from the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, but >> GPL can also protect *your* code. > > Patents are to foster innovation. Software innovation needs no patent > system to foster it. Nobody writes a piece of software because they > were able to get a patent for it. > > I feel software patents are a completely different entity than material > patents. For several reasons: > > 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code. > 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of software > is well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years). > 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down. Software is a purely > *abstract* thing, it's not a machine. Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers, boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by the source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is. > It can be produced en mass with near-zero cost. It can be expressed > via source code, which is *not* a piece of software. There is a very > good reason things like music, art, and written works are not > patentable. Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. Software, OTOH, does do things of practical utility.