|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 05:12 PM EDT |
We both agree that the laser itself qualified for a patent. It clearly falls
into that category of invention for most definitions of the word.
Would
you agree that the scientific knowledge that was used to build the laser should
be patented?
To be clear: not the laser itself - but the science. The
knowledge of how light photons works. The knowledge of how one could light
passes through a crystal. Would you agree that such knowledge - the knowledge
of gravity from observing an apple fall - should be patentable? I am of the
opinion it should not... but what's your opinion on that aspect?
But
there's a huge gap between quantum theory and reducing it to practice in the
form of an optically-pumped laser.
Are you suggesting Quantum
theory should be patentable? Not an invention that might come from quantum
theory - like warp engines - but the knowledge and understanding of quantum
theory itself!
inventors deserve SOME protection for their
inventions
And therein lies part of the problem. The definition of
the term "invention". I can only speak for myself on this
sentiment:
Discoveries in the form of understanding the laws of nature
should never be considered inventions!
To clarify the other side of that
coin:
A discovery in the form of a physical item that ends up doing
something you didn't expect - you accidently create the lightbulb - can qualify
as an invention.
The Lotus 123 interface was a significant
discovery, bringing the ability to operate a spreadsheet to almost everyone with
a computer.
I really can't say if I agree or disagree with regards
whether that was significant. But I can say:
Whether significant or not,
it's no different the applying "1+1=" into a calculator and getting an answer of
"2".
Therefore I would not agree that it qualified for patent
protection.
how should the legal encouragement
work?
How about by decreasing the number of patents granted? By
reigning in the madness that anything and everything no matter how small, simple
or obvious is granted patent protection.
And, I suppose, where do I
get the resources, which will be *much* less than the $50M expended on
OraGoogle
I guess that depends on which resources you are talking
about. Are you refering to:
The resources - mostly in time - to develop
your operating system on a single purchase of hardware so you can prove it can
be done!
or
The resources - mostly in money - to deal with the lawsuits
that one needs to be concerned about in the current system that does not
actually promote the progress of science!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT |
So... the question you didn't answer:
When has a cost of non-trivial
resources been a requirement to get a patent?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
Ho much of it was a copy don't know, the interface may or may not have been.
But 1-2-3 was a latecomer to the world of spreadsheets. Like so many programs it
only became dominant because it got a foothold on the fledgling PC, and managed
to hang on to it.
1-2-3 was an also-ran in the days of CP/M - that is if it was even around then.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
