|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT |
And that musical structures should be patentable.
You have failed to distinguish. In legal terms, your bogus theory of
patentability is overbroad.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
Count me as a vote for "patents just don't work." But it's
especially obvious in the field of software. The system is
destroying innovation, not helping it. And the problems
won't be fixed through the sorts of small tweaks you're
suggesting, and they certainly won't be fixed anytime soon
(probably at all) if we have to rely on litigation to do the
fixing.
I don't believe that software is magically different from
other fields of invention. I believe there are many
practical differences, starting with the availability of
copyright. We have special patent rules for drugs, based on
(perceived) special circumstances in that industry. We have
different copyright rules for music than for writing or for
architecture. Mr Risch, we are BEGGING you, don't force us
in the software industry to obey the same patent rules as
hardware. It's a disaster for us!
I'm making a policy argument. Happily, in the field of
software, we have additional empirical data: for a long
time, and still in most parts of the world, software was/is
not patentable. The evidence is very clear that lack of
patents did not hinder innovation; on the contrary, the
introduction of software patents has been a catastrophe. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
