Re: [tlug] Patents gone wrong?

[Godwin Stewart <godwin.stewart@example.com>]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:30:53 +0900, "Michael Engel" <mkengel@example.com>
wrote:

> Imagine you (your computer software company) have invented a process
> how to make computers using memory more efficiently. So your system
> allows the computer to start up in 1 second.
> How do you plan to protect your invention ?
> 
> {snip}
> 
> Do you see a fundamental difference between the software process and
> the chemical process ?

The flaw with this reasoning is that a software process has to show
originality to be the object of a patent. Your example of a process
that speeds the boot time up certainly would show originality and I
would have no problem with the "inventor" taking out a patent on it.

A "progress bar" (patented by Adobe), OTOH, is something that's been
used in one form or another ever since computing was invented more or
less, certainly since before Adobe even existed. The patent shouldn't
have been granted since there are oodles of examples of prior art.
That, and the act of clicking on an OK button (patented by M$ IIRC) are
nothing but junk patents designed with the sole intention of making it
virtually imposible for FLOSS developers to create software without
walking through a legal minefield.

*THAT* is what is wrong with the concept of software patents. The
officials who grant the patents probably don't know a keyboard from a
Winchester drive or a mouse from a CPU fan, and have secretaries to
read/send their e-mail. I'm convinced that 99.999% of software patents
granted to date would not have been granted if somone competent had
been dealing with them.

-- 
G. Stewart - godwin.stewart@example.com

The First Commandment for Technicians:
    Beware the lightening that lurketh in the undischarged
    capacitor, lest it cause thee to bounce upon thy buttocks
    in a most untechnician-like manner.

Attachment: pgpN39cxoeJqm.pgp
Description: PGP signature