"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.v3ylgbgaeav7ka@localhost.localdomain... > On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspa...@never.will.u> > wrote: > >> >> "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. > > Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of > sorts. What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an > entity puts into writing software.
With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source code is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than the end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book. It is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for analysis, rather than in direct or opposing response). > >>> 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. > > Software is not unlike math. I disagree. While one can use software to perform math, that does not make software "like math". > It achieves something based on an abstract concept of the world. It > has practical uses. That is too vague/general. Lacks the required amount of substance to be useful. > But math is not patentable. Given that I don't accept your stance that "software is like math", that is then irrelevant. >> >>> 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. > > Music and art are both different from software and the same. They are > different because there are no rules for creating valid music or art. > I could bang on the wall randomly with a pipe, and try to sell that as > music (and ironically, I might succeed). But they are the same > because writing music and creating art that *is good* is a difficult > thing that requires careful thought, planning, and execution. > Too vague and non-substantive to be used in support of any position on the issue of software patents.
