|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 06:22 AM EDT |
Seems like a real stretch to me. I don't think flying was an expected use of
wood burlap and canvas. Although I must point out that much of what the Wright
brothers did was in fact completely obvious.
Gliders had been around for a long time. They didn't invent gliders. So had
propellers. Putting an engine connected to a propeller in a glider was obvious.
The Wright brothers were the first to get it to work but many people were trying
to do it. The problem was getting an engine light enough and powerful enough to
do the job. If patents hadn't been awarded on planes, I expect aviation would
have developed much as it did.
You seem to be trying to persuade me by arguing that it is a total tragedy if
one deserving invention isn't awarded a patent. In fact you seem to believe that
this is such a bad outcome that we should err on the side of caution and patent
absolutely everything in sight just to be sure that it never happens.
That is the wrong argument to use with someone like me. I think that bad patents
are the disaster that we must be extra cautious to avoid. I would argue that bad
patents are so harmful that we should err on the side of caution and patent
nothing at all to make sure bad patents never happen.
So ... if you think there is an argument to be made that building a plane is
just an expected use of canvas and burlap then sure - it seems like a bit of a
stretch to me but hey - you are the lawyer. So let's not patent things like
planes then. I'm happy with that.
I'd be perfectly happy to see nothing patented at all. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
