Darren New wrote:
>> Either software is a thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we 
>> have a serious problem. 
> 
> I'm saying that people don't patent software. They patent hardware 
> that's running that software.  You may argue that it doesn't make any 
> difference, but that factually isn't the case, or nobody would be trying 
> to change that via the courts right now.
> 
Show me how many patents MS holds that talk about the hardware, and not 
software, then explain to me how its not patenting software itself. You 
are wrong about that. And the arguments being made are not "if they 
should" allow patents on software itself, but whether or not they 
**should have** in the first place in a **lot** of cases. On rethinking, 
there may be some cases where its damn fuzzy and might be reasonable, 
but there are two arguments against it, one being that even the 
industry, including, in some cases, the patent holders, find it 
*detracting* from the purpose of promoting innovation, and it is so damn 
fuzzy that avoiding crossing the line might not be even feasible.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message