On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:06:18 +0800, Ricky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Protecting one's interest is preceisely the point of intellectual property. > The reason why patents and copyrights are issued is to create value for the > creator. Thus software piracry = theft since it compromises the rights of the > creator.
Wrong. Copyright violations are considered "infringement", unlike "theft" like most of the people at BSA would want us to believe. > Regarding Paolo's adding invention, he wouldn't be issued a patent for 1+1=2. > No way, no how. As I said, concepts in themselves cannot be patented. If > Paolo were to create a new addition method using some sort of technology, for > instance a program that manipulates data in some way not conceived of before, > and that would be of desirable value > to others, then he would be in the right to receive a patent. The important > distinction is that this is not a theoretical construct but a real world > application that would need some sort of computer or similar device to be > practical. It is not the knowledge that is patented but the method within the > construct. Then again that "real world application" is but a mere re-expression of those concepts that is still within the realm of thought. I could rewrite "Hello World" a dozen times in a dozen languages, or aggregates of pieces of code in lots of languages (given the property of Turing equivalence). That doesn't mean though that every set of aggregate would be innovative in any way. Turing equivalence already scraps the plausibility of patenting even the methods in software construction - which themselves are just expressions/translations of mathematical statements. > All patents become pulic knowledge once the patent is granted. You can no > longer hide it since it resides in the patent office. You may get a copy of > each and every patent registered with instructions to make all sorts of > things. You will have to pay a license to the inventor though if you were to > use his patent to manufacture a product for sale. If you don't know they > exist, that's your own problem for not investigating. Do you really believe what you're saying? That would mean that for every software company around they would have to employ a large legal team just to scour patents! That alone would quickly sky-rocket the cost of development, much more the cost of entry for many software developer teams! That too would force many software developers to think like lawyers as they would have to actively know whether they are infringing on a patent or not before they code. What may seem to be really obvious to a developer can be deemed infringing to patent claims and can cause that developer to be hauled to court. And in this case, given that only large developer companies can afford the filing of patents, the developer with less resources will most likely lose. > The rest of your arguments tell me that you don't understand the meaning of > the world "property." You can't take your land with you to the grave either > but you have a right to eject undesirable tenants while you are alive :0 > > As for the Golden Rule, property protection is not selfishness. What would be > selfish would be to use someones idea and make money off it without rewarding > him. Property is primarily about money. You are not free to exploit someone > else's labour without just compensation. This is the essence of IP. No one is > stopping you from donating your creation to the general public. This is what > the FSF does with the GPL. But by their own rules, you are not allowed to use > this without sharing the source code as well. I cannot make a commercial > product out of their source code without including it this. Essentially, this > is the price they require from your to ensure that the code is free. But to > require everyone to behave in this manner is unjust and counter productive. > Less innovation will occur if the inventor is forced to give his creation > away for free. Allowing software patents would make the IT landscape ruled by the justice of the strong. This is the price for letting software patents. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
