M. Fioretti wrote:
In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the
perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For
those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are
granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something
similar". http://gnu.open-mirror.com/doc/book13.html
I never said anything to the contrary.
You said, in the previous message, "I'm pretty sure that the intention
was (2), not (1)", (1) being that patents exist to benefit society.
No, (1) was "make sure that everybody can learn all the details of new
technologies by *forcing* inventors to disclose what they did." and (2)
was "keep inventors motivated to keep inventing while giving away by
granting them a temporary monopoly."
(2) is a way to "benefit society".
Define "effective".
For this discussion, a more effective system is that which produces the
greatest ammount of innovation.
If I am a genius,
Then you would be the exception, and not a suitable example for deciding
how to encourage innovation. Most innovation doesn't come from geniuses.
Note that my scheme doesn't exclude yours. There is no reason to
patent everything you do.
Ok, I'm glad.
Look, as I said earlier, I can accept that there might be instances
where patents might, over-all, help more than harm. My point is that I
think for the most part, they do more harm than good. That the extra
motivation does not compensate for the less efficient system. The point
I've tried to make is to reject the notion that properly implemented
patents necessarily promote innovation. Not that they *never* do.
Cheers,
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
