|
Authored by: mrisch on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Really? Is that how suggestions work? I suggest that we mix up
some chemicals to cure cancer.
There - all cancer cures are obvious. It just can't be that
easy. Yes, there are lots of solutions in computers that
really are that obvious (and too many of them got patents),
but "you can do anything" is just not a suggest for anything
to come.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:59 AM EDT |
He understands, that, he's just doing a terrible job of
expressing himself.
He thinks that if you came up with some *other* program,
one that Alan Turing or Andy Grove never dreamed of, it one
that *wasn't* anticipated, suggested, etc by *anybody*, then
that program should be patentable. Such a program is hard
to find examples of; it may be mythical. I imagine Page &
Brin's thesis would qualify, if published before the
invention of the Internet (and somehow implemented at that
time!), but I could be wrong. But let's suppose that
society includes a few visionary geniuses capable of
inventing software that's totally new. Patent law (Risch
takes for granted) gives them the necessary financial
incentive to actually do so.
But Risch isn't really focused on whether patents actually
work or are beneficial overall. He assumes both, and asks
what's so special about software that it doesn't qualify for
the same "protection" as hardware. If it's novel, why not
patent it?
Now if only he'd listen to the answers...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|