>Send the source code to me and I will release it. Why? Because I believe >what I said in the above paragraph is true. It is immoral to have >software patents, not violate them. Especially ones as absurdly simple as >this. How could they proove that you did not come up with the idea >yourself? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
it doesn't matter at all that you came up with the idea yourself. patents are not there to protect against theft of trade secrets - thats a different section of law. the model of patent law is that society is trying to provide an incentive to a person who comes up with an idea that requires investment of time/money to make it useful. the incentive is designed to encourage them to make that investment, and it takes the form of the government providing some assurance that any potential revenue they might make from the idea/invention will come to them and not go to competitors. its not a guarantee, since there might be other ways of doing the same thing that competitors could use to undercut them, but its still better than nothing. if you independently invent the same thing, that's no defense. the patent says "we've identified XXX as the inventor, and s/he is now entitled to X years of income deriving from the usefulness of the invention". that fact that you've invented it too is simply irrelevant. the way to stop this nonsense is to make the patent examiners do a better job, which starts with understanding what "non-obvious" means when it comes to software. its not impossible that other people might independently reinvent ideas covered by "good" patents, but its much, much less likely. any software patent that represents the application of an algorithm/data structure/UI already used in one domain to another is a very, very bad patent IMHO. >Well I guess I'm not anti-authoritarian and Australian for nothing. What >ever happened to standing up for your freedom and rights. Nothing, or >nobody should stop you or seek to punish you for releasing an open source >software based sampler not for profit. That is surely a kind act of >generosity, not a law breaking action. viewed from the perspective of society as a whole, and with a focus on the idea/invention in question, there's no doubt about that. but there are at least 2 other positions: * that of the inventor. you've just denied him/her the revenue they might have made on the invention. is this theft? * society as a whole viewing the invention process as a whole. you're removing the incentive that patents provide to go through the development process. does society want that? of course, i happen to agree that software patents in general are a monstrous mistake. but its not anywhere near as simple as i think you are claiming. >On the other hand. Why not release the source code anonymously and claim >that you have nothing to do with it if you fear the consequences that >much. How can you feel guilty about lieing about that, when they should >feel more guilty for patenting something so simple? i don't patent software, and i don't lie. i'm not willing to choose to have to do either. --p