|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 10 2012 @ 05:50 AM EDT |
Just like a piece of software doesn't care that it's running
on steam powered hardware or valves, or microprocessors, a
cog system doesn't care what it's made out of (subject - as
with the computing analogy - to efficiency and reliability
issues.)
The proponents of software patenting seem to think that the
act of running the software on a computer creates a new
patentable machine (similarly to an arrangement of cogs
arguably creating a new machine - whether it's patentable or
not might depend on many factors). Or at least that's one
argument that seems to be used, and which needs to be
attacked.
The physical component used generally seems to be some kind
of tacked-on input or output system, which is not really
part of the invention, but merely required to obfuscate
what's being patented. It all seems fishy to me.
Another good practical argument against software patents is
the obvious fact that the end result of them is that they
screw up everything for the software industry, and appear to
be 90 for the benefit of the legal trade.
It makes me want to create some software that screws with
the legal profession, just so they know what it feels like.
Happily, unlike the legal profession, I have no way to
enforce my stupidity on other people.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
