Plus it's lack of humility to assume to be the first to have thought of
something. Whatever we come up with, usually it has already been invented,
possibly even centuries ago as a theory (& sometimes at the wrong time & no
one paid attention / found it a proper use). But it's pretty rare to
actually invent something (I'd even say, people more often discover or
re-discover things, by luck or by mistake).
I more believe in (morally) protecting "art".
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:06:40 +0000
Victor Lazzarini <victor.lazzar...@nuim.ie> wrote:
A scientific paper, IMHO, is the way to move the field forward.
More: By publishing you make the advance unpatentable. Therefore
a patent can _only_ be interpreted (in a modern context) as a
desire to inhibit progress.
As such it is a shining example of the zero sum knowledge fallacy,
AKA, your gain is my loss, or "keep them stupid".
As a scientist, teacher and human being I find I'm morally
obliged to oppose such madness.
Andy
Victor
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:02, Dave Hoskins wrote:
> The whole point of a Patent is to help engineers move forward, so
> it's completely legitimate to take a previous invention and add to
> it, to make a new Patent.
> It's a shame they are not seen like this at all.
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews,
dsp links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
