|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
Since patents is all about the want or need to enforce (maybe over)compensation,
and or defense, it means this world is not ideal.
This same non-idealistic world is also what makes your idealized balanced patent
system the way you see it should work, fail. That is why it failed allready.
( I have nothing against an ideal world btw)
Therefore on another level of balance, software should not be patentable.
The costs of the side effects of it are too large.
For instance it could be used to kill opensource software, in which many people
/ companies have invested a lot of effort. Not to mention freedom.
Somehow I agree that in your idealized situation patents could work,
but then again, in that situation patenting would not even be necessary.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
Neither you nor anyone else can devise an equitable system
that will limit the number of software patents in a given
year to single digits.
Unfortunately you have chosen a branch of mathematics for
your career and math is not patentable under current US case
law.
By the way, how do you suppose the guys and gals in the <any
university> math department get along without patents? Or
the folks who cut player piano rolls, for that matter?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
