[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why are software patents wrong?

From: threeseas
Subject: Re: Why are software patents wrong?
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 19:51:47 GMT
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626)

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
threeseas wrote:

So where does software really fit? Copyright, patent, both, neither???



perhaps you should have more completely read my message (posts).

the article you refer to does not deal with the fundamental problem and it shows especially when it refers to Richard Stallmans tantrums as a sign of something being beyond rational debate. (I believe this was in reference or some how being related to the so called "disengious use of the word 'Free' by the FSF".)

For I can and am more a "hardass" then Richard.

Software will only truely be free when it is easy enough to create that anyone with a basic understanding of "abstraction physics" can create it and/or direct the system to create it.

Like getting the results of what you enter in a calculator. Do you pay royalities everytime you add, substract, multiply, etc.. some numbers?
How about the use of pi, who do you pay royalites to for using it?

Or is it FREE?

Now if you think I'm nuts, then you share the same short sightedness of those who lead us to the Y2K problem and the cost of those who extracted value from us for fixing it (a hidden charge to be collected after a given date????.)

Programming is the act of automatng complexity, typically made up of already existing simpler complexities and done so that the user of that complexity can more easily use and reuse that complexity, perhaps even in creating another complexity with easier reuse interfacing.

Where do you think this is going? And if you remove the nearsighted problem? -------- I'm in the middle of building cups 1.2.x and I haven't a clue what any of the code looks like or how autoconfig made a specific configure file for my system (other than the hint of configure posing questions it then answers). But I can follow the simple directions of what command to enter on teh command line and I know it really wouldn't take much more to even automate that to the vocal input of "get the latest cups and install it on this system"...

Now whether or not cups will work on my system, even after this, I do not know but I did notice there seemed to be like 90% of the cvs download was documents of one format or another.... perhaps I should print it out... Hmmm, and the cups problem I have to begin with is from a knoppix 3.3 HD install.... and we all know how knoppix is really simplifying linux use and trial.

The answer to my question above (what you quoted), is that it is not known where software fits in IP rights assignment and will continue to be an unknown until the natural physics of abstraction creation and use are recognized and accepted just as we accept other natural laws, physical phenomenon and even the concept of abstract ideas....

Otherwise for what reality do we base the assignment of software IP rights on? copyright? patents? or something else more correctly designed upon the natural physics of abstraction, the nature of software.

The physics that allow us to so easily convert abstract thought into physical control of physical devices has to be established with absolute certainty and undeniability that it gives us a base for which to establish clairity in software IP rights. That as well allows us to know the difference between obvious and common solution directions and novelality (sp?.) while avoiding hinderance of the human right and duty to advance the quality of life.

Otherwise it is nothing more than who has the better sounding, "PROOF AVOIDING" arguement. Who has the better rethoric of playing in the bottomless pit of manipulating abstractions and attached meanings in order to fit some patent application form or arguement against.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]