[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
* Rick Marshall <rjm@zenucom.com> [2005-06-06 19:02]:
> i agree that copyright is a whole other thing that has validity. it is
> the expression of the ideas as a real product.
>
> if you simply take an exact copy and sell it and don't send me money....
> well we can all see the problem.
>
> let's just say that someone convinces the patent office to allow
> musicians to patent chord sequences (you can't even copyright them at
> the moment for good reason), but tell me where the music industry would
> be if someone owned a patent on IV-V7-I?
That's a good analogy. I sometimes use the notion, what if
someone could patent plots or characters in literature.
If the you could patent such things...
The patent on tragically flawed hero might have expired, but you
could always patent tragically flawed hero working for The
Department of Homeland Security.
That organization has not existed before, and thus this is a
character who does not have a precident. No prior art. It must
be a new and novel idea.
That's how I feel about these patents that are about storing
things in files, but the files are XML files. Or sending things
across networks, but the packets are XML streams.
The same thing as before, but now with XML.
Or in the case of business process patents, soliciting
charitable donations, but using wide-area network.
(One that I read about recently.
http://www.eff.org/effector/18/10.php#III)
To me these are applications of a technology. They are obvious.
They are inveitable.
--
Alan Gutierrez - alan@engrm.com
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/index.html
- http://engrm.com/blogometer/rss.2.0.xml
|
