That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned
simo.sorce at xsec.it
Sun Dec 15 16:52:16 UTC 2002
On Sun, 2002-12-15 at 15:40, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
> Alex Hudson wrote:
> > [This is beside all the other arguments: I believe the economic one to
> > be particularly strong - software patents should not be given simply
> > because they are not needed.]
> Let me just say that you make an interesting point, and I agree
> with you that this makes it very difficult to defend 'software
> patents'. However, are you sure you're making an economic argument?
> For me, the economic argument is simply "software can be used
> to imitate hardware, so if software is unpatentable I can get
> around patents by simply using software instead". This is
> unfair to patent holders and hence software that imitates
> hardware should be protected by the patent.
So you said, in a former email, that if you find another way to solve a
problem it should not be covered by the patent, now that we find another
way to solve the problem (through software) that it must be covered.
By the way if it is "simple", then probably the "competent" patent
attorney has already covered it, hasn't she?
But the problem is exactly in this statement:
"This is unfair to patent holders"
Patents are not here to make patent holders a living or made them rich,
they are there to promote innovation when this method is more a benefit
for the community then the economical and ethical damages it can make.
Software patents, does more damages than benefits.
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Discussion