That anti-patent pamphlet I mentioned

[Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet]

M E Leypold @ labnet wrote:
> Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet writes:
>  > 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
> 
> Exactly. That is, as it should be. The original intention with patents
> (a privilege temporarily granted to an inventor), was to protect
> _methods_, not _results_ or effects. 

Methods and products, I hope you mean. The basic idea is to
give the patent holder a temporary monopoly so he can sell
his invention for a nice profit. That's the encouragement:
tell us your invention and make lots of money!

> So actually you shouldn't be able
> to patent things, but only ways to produce them. You shouldn't be able
> reserve the right to _have_ or use horses to yourself or your
> company. Of course if you find a new and unique method to produce
> horses, or a new method to use horses to build a spaceship: You can
> patent that.

Should I be able to patent a spaceship?

Kind regards,

Arnoud Engelfriet

-- 
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/