Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 
> 
> That was a complement. :-)
> 
>> I think we are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.
> 
> Perhaps. I think you're still talking about "should" and I'm still 
> talking about "is". I'm not advocating that software *should* be 
> patentable. I'm simply saying that right now it is, and I find your 
> assertion that everyone including every lawyer on both sides of the 
> argument and all the judges and patent examiners are colluding to 
> "forget" that some things aren't patentable seems far-fetched.
> 
> Discussing the "should" of it might be interesting, but only with 
> someone willing to discuss shades of grey.
> 
Well. In a sense you are correct. It is a should. But its a "should" 
based on a reasonable argument about the nature of software and 
"existing" definitions of what is excluded. The argument isn't that 
there is collusion, its that the nature of software is sufficiently 
complex that one can't simply expect patent lawyers, or judges, to have 
a clear understanding of what it *is*, and under such conditions, its 
all too easy to create a long series of cases supporting it, when it 
should never have been in the first place. That is all that is being 
argued by the Groklaw site too. That the nature of the subject should 
have excluded it, but that most didn't look at it right, and some of 
them may have, due to their own interests, *intentionally* misled the 
patent system into looking at it in a way that supported patents, while 
being careful to derail attempts to argue against it.

And, seriously, how many of the companies involved wouldn't have wanted 
patents? I would argue that, in most cases, the people involved in such 
cases where "both" companies or individuals, who where arguing not over 
whether someone should own a patent on it, but who. They are hardly, on 
either side, given the number their own law departments already have on 
things, going to argue that the process **itself** is invalid, not just 
the specific patent. I am sure you can think of parallels where this 
has, or could, happen.

-- 
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