Re: Patents again

[threeseas]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
> [...]
>
> > File the patent and ignore it after it issues.  It will be marked abandoned
> > when you don't pay your fees but it will be in the USPTO database and will
> > constitute prior art even by USPTO standards.
>
>
> You don't need a patent for that. Disclosures aside for a moment,
> SIR (Statutory Invention Registration) is good enough, so to say. 
>
> See also:
>
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/200401/msg01114.html
>
> regards,
> alexander.


interesting, point 1 and 2 at that link provide something of a 
contridiction. How are programmers to review patent applications while 
not polluting themselves with the contents?. Not to mention how some of 
the others play against each other.

And point #4.... obvious, useful and innovative....

Define these things in terms that are provable.... one mans trash is 
another man treasure....... but the software industry knows this game of 
rethoric well (or is the software industry not the experts of 
abstraction fabrication and manipulation of assigned meaning ?)..... so 
who is it really MAKING these points useless to try and apply in a court?

its like trying to argue about god and religion with the church, who 
will burn you at the steak for being a witch....if you try to object 
using any of their inherently self supporting biased rules.

So.... its rather pointless to make use of a system that is 
fundamentally in error and inherently biased, to begin with (re: 
software patent system), wouldn't you say?

What looks like an orange, smells like an apple, but taste like 
something totally different..... like monkey brains.

Maybe we need to stop calling it orange juice (copyright), apple juice 
(patent) and start calling it what it is. Even if it means we have to 
first establish what it is first. And don't we have plenty examples and 
practices of abstraction creation (fabrication) and use (manipulation of 
meanings) by the software industry, to help us determine the monkey 
brains it is?

or is that to........... subjective, to objectively see clearly?