Re: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!

[Wayne Steele <xmlmaster@hotmail.com>]

Is this a troll?

Yes, I know there are people who hold the views you have expressed.
Some people feel otherwise.
You do not have to agree with them, but the history of this thread on 
XML-DEV should illuminate you as to _WHY_ many feel that business-model and 
software patents are, in general, "bad".

-Wayne Steele


>From: David Lyon <david@globaltradedesk.com>
>Reply-To: david@globaltradedesk.com
>To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Subject: Re: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!
>Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 10:22:33 +1000
>
>
>Patents are excellent. They reward those who are truly innovative for a
>reasonable period of time so that their inventions aren't copied.
>
>I really don't understand why patents are talked down when the concept of
>innovation and the legal protection for it are the basis for material 
>success
>in the western world.
>
>Go to a country where IP is not so highly valued and you often find that 
>it's
>not worth peoples time investing in new ideas and techniques because they
>know the next day their idea will get swiped. There are many countries that
>come to hand where people think like this extensively.
>
>If patents aren't innovative and unique, they can be challenged in court.
>Otherwise, just go get another idea.
>
>As somebody once said, either Lead, follow or get out of the way!
>
>On Friday 19 October 2001 08:08, you wrote:
> > When I first started following this thread, I thought Len was being 
>naive
> > about software patents, or just looking for a good argument.
> >
> > But I've come to think he's actually right about this: "RF Only" is 
>perhaps
> > too inflexible for the real world. "RAND" is (at least around these 
>parts)
> > intolerable.
> >
> > I would like to see discussion about when it's acceptable for patents to
> > intersect with W3C work, what is an acceptable resolution in these 
>cases,
> > and who decides?
> >
> > "RAND" means "Lets talk about patents later, and I promise we won't 
>single
> > you out to get screwed".
> >
> > I think most of us agree that more talking about patents as soon as the
> > issue comes up is a good thing, not a bad one.
> >
> > As Len put it, "broad exhaustive review".
> >
> > Maybe there is some rare case where a patent on software technology 
>really
> > is a reasonable reward for a brilliant and useful invention. How do we 
>draw
> > the lines so we can tell (Hint: not by accepting the USPTO actions as 
>final
> > or even informed) ?
> >
> >
> > -Wayne Steele
> >
> >
> > From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
> > ...
> >
> > >The issue is the RF or non-RF terms.   What can be
> > >done effectively is have a policy for disclosure,
> > >broad exhaustive review, membership choice and
> > >negotiated terms.
> >
> > ...
> >


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp