|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
"patents work more or less the way they should
for such things"
Well, I'd debate that. How many flying machines were there in the 25 years
after it was patented?
How many were there in the 3 years after that?
How many other people were only a few moths away from patenting it themselves?
There's a reaonable amount of evidence that even "straightforward"
patents like that are harmful. See sun-and-planet-gear/crankshaft, steam
engine, cellophane film, heavier-than-air-flight, and probably a whole pile
more.
Technology advances by standing on the shoulders of those who came before, by
tiny, tiny steps. Not by the leaps and bounds that the patent system assumes.
And most of the best stuff comes from acidemia, where free sharing of
information is key.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
I read and considered the argument and responded by showing how that argument
would be applied to any other invention and showed (I hope) the ridiculous
logically consistent conclusion that would result.
The fact that a computer is meant to be programmed does not make every possible
program old or obvious, just as the fact that wood can be used to define and
support structures does not make every possible structure old or obvious.
The law has indicated that improvements to old machines are patentable for a
long time and there is a reason for that. We want to encourage the disclosure
of improvements to machines for reasons I hope ARE obvious.
There is no reason to carve out an exception for computers. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
