[Ldsoss] Dare I say it ... patents ...

[V. B. Hunt]

Justin Findlay wrote:
> On 4/10/06, V. B. Hunt <shoalcreek5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Steven H. McCown wrote:
>>     
>>> I've found it difficult to understand why some have started to dislike patents so intensely -- when they have been a tenant of US business society for 100's of years.
>>>       
>
> The kinds of corruption and extortion that patents allow/encourage
> have been a part of US business society for 100's of years.  Recently
> disgust over patents has intensified because what is patentable has
> been greatly broadened and the number of opportunistic litigants and
> extortionists has greatly increased.
>
>   
>> following simple test that I learned in second grade applies here:  If
>> you can hold it or touch it with your hand, it is concretely physical
>> (traditionally patentable); if you can hold it in your thoughts and can
>> make symbols on paper to represent it but can't physically touch it,
>> then it is abstract (copyright-able and trademark-able, but not patentable).
>>     
>
> Trying to define what is patentable or copyrightable is a tricky
> proposition.  I'm not convinced that excluding abstract ideas from
> patentability (as absurd and dangerous as that seems), including
> software, is justifiable from an ideal perspective.  Better to
> eliminate patents altoghtether than allow someone to patent the ideas
> in my head, but I'm willing to listen to reason beyond my own as to
> whether excluding abstract ideas from patentability is justified. 
> Much evil can come from going too far either way, from no patents or
> copyrights to everything is patentable and copyrightable from very
> long periods of duration to ad infinitum.  Sadly I think our society
> is gradually drifting toward the latter.
>
>
> Justin
> _______________________________________________
> Ldsoss mailing list
> Ldsoss at lists.ldsoss.org
> http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
>
>   
Similar to your own statements, I use the idea and reason originally 
behind patents and copyrights to direct my own opinions.  The original 
idea was to let people gain exclusive profit from their innovations and 
creative works, should they so choose, for a limited amount of time 
(usually just long enough to make people want to innovate--not long 
enough to let them retire at age 20).  For this reason did I go on to 
explain that even though I saw software as an abstract, I could see a 
justification for patenting software for a limited time (even though I 
believe that, in most cases, a copyright serves just as well).

Brice