[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* M. David Peterson <m.david.x2x2x@gmail.com> [2005-06-06 09:41]:
> Comments below:
>
> On 6/6/05, Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@innoq.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2005, at 11:25 AM, M. David Peterson wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/6/05, Stefan Tilkov <stefan.tilkov@innoq.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Only by disallowing software patents altogether.
> > >>
> > >
> > > How does this fix the here and now? You can't just pull the patent
> > > rug out from the entire software industry, tell everyone to play nice,
> > > and walk away with a "now wasn't that easy" attitude.
> > Sure you can. Who'd get hurt? Amazon, because now I can build my own
> > online bookstore? Microsoft, because I might start serializing
> > objects to XML? I can practically smell their fear already ...
> These are rediculous arguments.
> > There's lots of ways to make money from great software, entirely
> > without the need for patents.
> Sure. you can sell a license for it.
> If software company b comes along, steals your source code or even
> some of the innovative ways you do something within your software,
> changes a few things to make it seem like its theirs, and re-sells it
> as their own then yeah, theres a need for a way to protect this from
> happening.
> They're called patents.
If software company b comes along, steals your source code, you
pursue them for copyright violation.
I'm not making any comment about this particular exchange or
it's take on open source, patents, the Seattle economy, etc.
I'm merely noting that sometimes it is forgotten that software
itself is protected by copyright law, and that provides
signicant protection.
If you argue that we need patents to prevent wholesale theft of
software, then you need to adjust your argument.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
|
