On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 08:08, Arnoud Galactus Engelfriet wrote:
Probably not. But without the incentive offered by the patent, is there any reason anyone would reveal the details of the idea?
the idea is self evident. That's why patent is about how you implement it and not the idea itself. However sometimes (should I say often today ?) also the way it is implemented is self evident.
That would be a good criteria, to choose: if the invention is self evident it does not need protection as it does not give nothing more to the community to describe a self evident process with convoluted patent attorney made words.
Why should your business monopoly be protected by law?
Selling potatoes isn't novel. If I tell the world something technically novel and practically useful, it helps the progress of science, and I should be rewarded. I like the idea of rewarding people with a monopoly.
Seem also you do not like to consider the consequence of this idea.
If I'm the first to invent a particular matter transporter, then I'm also the first to invent _the_ matter transporter. It wasn't there before. I made it, and so I should have the patent to it. Just like Edison patented the lightbulb.
Again ... you are patenting an abstract idea that way. Edison patented it's light bulb not every possible light emitting device. Ideas cannot be rewarded, ideas are cheap and a consequence of every little previous idea, they pop up by them selves at a point of the evolution of a society, when times are ready to make that idea conceivable.
What is often difficult to do is realizing the idea. That particular realization may be rewarded in some cases.
Why you again try to sell us a way of thinking that is self evident broken? You say pure logic should not be covered by patents, but immediately after that you want a way to effectively patent pure logic, concepts, abstract ideas?
Simo.