From: Tim Bates (tbates@karri.bhs.mq.edu.au)
Date: Tue Dec 22 1998 - 02:23:34 MST
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky said
>Ideally, patents are not so much property as a cooperative agreement
>between yourself and the public; if you reveal the mechanism of your
>invention so that the public can benefit, the public agrees to ensure
>that you don't suffer for it.
Why do the public benefit from knowing that a solution exists but that
they can't use it? Who in the public benefits from granting a patent on
the colt revolver? All that did was force a bunch of people to build
crazy approximations to "the one true way" and gave lots of money to
Samuel Colt & Co. The public would have been better off if there was no
patent.
The way that I see it, if purchasing the good does not "give away" its
secret (as in coca cola) you don't need a patent. If simply seeing the
good does give away its secret (as would be the case in the colt
revolver), then copyright is sufficient. The only people who profit from
patents are losers. Levi's survives on copyright, Colt would have also.
Anyhow. I don't think i have anymore to add to this: i just think it is
wrong that someone can stop me from writing software that i have thought
of. You would think that too if you wrote the code and you are suffering
from overpricing as a result.
cheerio,
tim
____________________
Linux: the choice of a GNU generation.
http://www.linuxresources.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:50:04 MST