...Divorcing software from the patent system is
a band-aid. What we
really need to
do is axe the entire patent system...
Taken to
its logical conclusion, I have to agree. We
eventually get to the point where
we can design anything via
software (the replicator vs. the turing machine)...a
set of
instructions for assembling particles is software, we just
don't have a
machine that makes that possible yet.
I want the correct fix, too, but
right now I see a more
pressing need to stop the harm software patents are
causing.
I want to prevent holders of software patents from halting
the
creativity of other software authors.
That steam engine example is
definitely a frustrating one
(as are the non-software patents in the current
smartphone
wars). Nothing but agreement from me on that.
What can we
fix? I think that if the explanation can be
made in a way that is easily
understood, then step one can
be the elimination of software patents. That's
difficult
enough to get to without going to the next step of throwing
the
whole system out.
I hear something new coming out of that last statement,
and I'm very curious to hear more of what you're
thinking.
--- 'Murphy was an optimist'
-O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|