geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> writes: > […] I think it's quite reasonable to contend that the existence of > lambda calculus no more rules out the applicability of patents to > software (which I detest) than it rules out the applicability of > patents to hardware (which I find only slightly less ridiculous) or > other meatspace inventions.
That matches my own position on the topic. Further, most software idea patents are worded so that they give lip service to the theory that pure algorithms can't be patented; they tie the patent to “A machine for computation plus [insert broad obfuscated description of algorithm here]”. Yessir, this is an amazing invention of ours to turn this general-purpose computer into a machine that does what we want it to do. Patenting ideas? You must be thinking of someone else. So, even if the theory of non-patentable algorithms were to stand up in most jurisdictions, it doesn't have any force against the software idea patents that are actually problematic. -- \ “Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a | `\ religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.” | _o__) —Anonymous | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
