Before we run off and abolish patents, let's consider what they really are. I am not familiar with patent/copyright history in general, but have studied the concept as defined in the US Constitution and by the US' "founding fathers." The idea is quite reasonable and probably even radical today. In return for your hard work and investment, the government grants you protection for your idea (patents) or work of art (copyright). In order to get this protection, the existence of your work must be made public (in the case of copyright, the work MUST be published). This protection is granted for a reasonable period of time (used to be 20 years for copyrights, a very long time back in the late 1700's). Patent holders had to license their works, and copyright holders had to make their works available to the public (for a fee). In return for granting this period of protection, said works became public property (not government property) after the protected period of time elapsed.
What we are dealing with now is something so perversely distorted from the original intent of these laws. I could rant about laws much less than 200+ years old that were great ideas and turned into something perverse and hideous, but not today. For example, patent law clearly states that naturally-occurring substances cannot be patented. Why are patents allowed on genes? I can see the -process- for creating a new gene being patented, but not the gene itself (even if it does not occur in nature). And "software patents" are antithetical to the whole idea of what patents are supposed to cover. So I don't support getting rid of patents or copyrights. While many of the laws (in the US, anyway) do clarify particular sections of the Constitution, most merely pervert it. I propose instead that a good deal of the subsequent 'tinkering' with patent and copyright law be repealed, and we get back to what is a really good idea. You get something from the government (protection for your work) and give back something to "we the people" by giving up all rights after a reasonable period of time. And we stick to physical processes for patents (i.e., you can't patent the light bulb, but you can patent the process for making a particular type of bulb - and you must license it at reasonable cost). And the length of a copyright goes back to 20 years or less, no one should 'own' a work of art "for all time." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
