I am playing devils advocate. For an intelligent dialectic to occur someone
needs to take the less favorable argument.
Did I really make a claim that
computers execute "statements, equations and expressions"? I believe I said
they execute instructions.
The computer is a machine which exhibits
enhancements of its characteristics as a result of executing software. Those
enhancements are useful. Why can't the cause of those enhancements be
patentable?
Why should everyone grant you a monopoly for
algorithms you
did not invent, machines you did not build, and that
any bright
high school student could prototype in hours?
That is a
political question, and a good one I will admit. Why should anyone be able to
have exclusive claim to mining or drilling rights in a region. Natural
resources should have humanity as its beneficiary, right?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|