Re: [xml-dev] Re: Patents on XML software, file formats, schemas, vocabu

[sterling <sstouden@thelinks.com>]

The ditch digger works hard to create a ditch that meets the engineering 
specifications.  The job is superb, but no patent issues.  He gets paid 
for the hours of his labor and that is all.  In other words, he gets paid 
once.  

One the other hand a person who is highly trained in a state university 
on a free scholarship is hired and ordered to create a particular piece of 
software, the employer claims he or she owns th work for hire, and files a 
patent and gets paid thousands of time for the work they did not even do.

Patents are monopolies.  They monopolize all of the knowledge, informaton 
and technology in the same way that the feudal estates monopolized all of 
the factors of production.   Patents recreate the feudal system. 



On Wed, 19 Jul 2006, Tatu Saloranta wrote:

> 
> 
> --- adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> > applications, this looks like software to me. What
> > is more to the
> > point, do you really think that the above such
> > applications shouldn't
> > be allowed?
> 
> Although this was addressed to Ken, I would say "hell
> no". Why should they? Copyrights already protect
> computer software itself -- why should the underlying
> ideas be monopolizable as well? One call look at
> lackluster development in some CS fields, like fractal
> and wavelet compression, to see "benefits" of
> patentability, and to consider what possible benefit
> would there be in EU changing the rules. It's quite
> clear to me that the biggest companies (Nokia et al)
> see it as an opportunity to get some more leverage
> against smaller and nimber competitors; but for public
> at large (who, after all, is supposed to benefit from
> patents -- it was originally designed as quid pro quo
> between public and inventors, not, as some thing, as
> inventor welfare system) there's little if anything to
> gain.
> 
> > I am very enthusiastic about open source and my
> > livelihood depends on
> > it. Make no mistake, I depend on the collective
> > effort and brilliance
> > of other people, moreover I can see time and again
> > that large software
> > monopolies serve no one apart from those who own
> > them. But I do think
> > that fair effort deserves fair reward. I don't know
> > how to distinguish
> > when a software patent should be granted and when it
> > shouldn't, but it
> 
> I would think that there's not much need for such
> distinction if the rule is that computer programs and
> algorithms were not to be patentable (or business
> processes, ie. "selling sausage ON THE INTERNET").
> 
> > is about this point I think the discussion should be
> > focused, not
> > trying to convince people that s/w patents are no
> > more when, so far as
> > i can see, that is just not the case.
> 
> It's worth noting though that just because someone is
> trying to apply for a patent (possibly due to
> patentability being seemingly possible, as it were,
> earlier) doesn't mean they might not get denied.
> 
> -+ Tatu +-
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>