11 Nov
2002
11 Nov
'02
10:48 a.m.
Paul Davis wrote:
well, the local (german) patent laws state that the idea actually
needs to be new. a translation of an existing mechanism into a
domain as closely related as in this example is usually not considered
a valid patent candidate.
in this light,
claiming the patented idea is either original or
new is nonsensical.
this is a misunderstanding of how the patent system works in all
countries that i know anything about. you don't get a patent on an
idea. you get a patent on the application of an idea to a domain. if
you figure out how to take an idea from one domain and use it in
another you can often patent what you've done. the only issue for the read-ahead-for-rapid-throughput. i think they are
utterly and
completely wrong about this, and that their attitude demonstrates a
complete misunderstanding of what software is.
it seems to me they have barely any understanding of software
at all -- which doesn't come as a big surprise: capable programmers
can earn much more (money and fame) in companies that actually
produce, not analyze software. until recently, this actually seemed
to apply to not-so-capable programmers, too.
i'd like to add that i think that in the us, the attitude of
'what is good for our economy is good for all' has provoked the
current situation. the patent system (this actually extends, albeit
moderately, to the eu) in its current state is a cash-flow generator
after all, and it protects investments.
tim