On Mon, 2002-12-16 at 18:03, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
I also don't think that re-implementation of something is necessarily something that should be covered by a patent.
But surely all imitators are re-implementing an invention?
Are you talking about imitators or copiers?
When you imitating a solution (either aware of it or not) you're having more or less the same amount of effort the original solver had since you're probably not even doing it the same way.
When you're copying the solution, you only had the work of copying (almost zero, normally)... that is, you copied and relaunched as yours...
Why is your effort worth it, and not the others'? Is there any reason your idea would *only*come*from*you*?
Well, I also think that if you find a different implementation of the same inventive idea in hardware, the patent holder should be able to stop you. Just like with software. If it's a new solution, you're in the clear. If it's just a different realization, you're infringing.
You're the only one selling potatoes. Someone decides to sell potatoes too. Make some money, maybe even sell cheaper, etc.. in the end, the consumer benefits.
Why should your business monopoly be protected by law?
Well, what you're saying is that 'inventions' in software do not actually exist until they're built in hardware. The comparison with science fiction springs to mind: Star Trek would not be prior art against someone building a matter transporter. But if Gene ever had explained how you could build one, you could no longer patent the general concept of matter transporters.
You could *NEVER* patent "a" matter transporter. You can only patent *THIS* matter transporter.
That's what you're missing. Software is not matter...
Rui