|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 07:48 AM EST |
It sounds like the conference was a classic split between
those who love truth vs. those who love power and money. It
seems there is basically no one who understands computers
and programming who thinks software ought to be patentable,
except for a few folks with tech backgrounds who have gone
over to the dark side.
The "software is math" argument is only compelling as long
as the legal system sticks to the axiom that algorithms and
other math cannot be patented. We may eventually get judges
and congressmen to understand that computers can do nothing
but computation, and that patents on software are indeed the
very patents on mathematical algorithms that are in theory
disallowed. The problem is that with so much money on the
other side, we may get new laws that say "OK, got it.
Software is math. So what. It can still be patented
because we said so".
RMS' appeal to basic rights of expression is much more
compelling - "If someone programs a new solution to a
problem, how can it be justifiable to allow someone else to
prevent such an activity?"
IMHO what we need is wider public recognition of the fatal
flaws of software patents, so that any public official who
supports such patents will start to be worried that he/she
is seen to be beholden to corporate scam artists who are out
to rip off the public. We saw that public opinion can have
an effect in the SOPA episode.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Truth vs. money - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 05:45 PM EST
|
|
|
|