|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 31 2013 @ 04:35 PM EST |
Language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its
audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity
I'd hardly call
pointing out the realities of the actual use of software patents to developers
rhetoric.
Unless, of course, you subscribe to the other definition of
rhetoric:
The art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.
In
which case: I'd suggest much more use of effective and persuasive writing to
help educate the authorities who oversee Patents.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 01 2013 @ 12:32 AM EST |
2. What is the point for a programmer in reading
patents?
Consider avoiding rhetorical questions in formal writing.
You suggested alternatives for points 1 & 3, how about one
for this one?
No, that's not rhetorical, but a request of a better way of
expressing that whole paragraph that is pointing out that software patents fail
in their proper intended use of furthering software development by allowing a
short (sic) term monopoly in return for giving away their secret.
It's
rather funny (sic):
- It's not illegal to take a mechanical device,
reverse engineer it and create your own; so to protect the inner workings
patents are used.
- But it IS illegal to take a software device, reverse
engineer it and create your own; the DCMA explicitly makes it illegal, so why
does software ALSO need patents?
No, that's not a rhetorical question, but
one for which I would like an answer.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|