From: Tim Bates (tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Date: Sun Dec 20 1998 - 17:17:51 MST
T0Morrow@aol.com said
>U.S. patent law, for example, covers only new,
>useful, and non-obvious devices or processes. See Patent Act ss. 101-103.
The real trouble is the PEOPLE in the patent office. They had/have no
great clue about their purpose in civil society.
What is new about a human gene that has existed for 50,000 to 1000,000
years?
What is non-obvious? I mean, non-obvious to whom? To a patent clerk? or
to some one with an IQ >135 who has made a serious study of the issue?
What is a process? Is software a process? I don't think so, but software
patents exist. Is mathematics a process? Apparently not, you can't patent
a mathematical proof. But isn't computing algorithmic?
The real key to preventing these people from locking up the world of
ideas is to establish prior art: if ever you have a nice algorithm, give
it away into the public domain. Then it is forever free, even under the
present laws.
cheers,
tim
____________________
After discovering the basic principle of electromagnetic induction in
1831, Michael Faraday was asked by a skeptical politician what good might
come of electricity. "Sir, I do not know what it is good for," Faraday
replied. "But of one thing I am quite certain - someday you will tax it."
Little did he know how right he was, though more than a century would
pass before the word bits existed.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST