simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 00:55 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
Aren't patents claimed to reward "the true and first inventor"? (Statute of Monopolies, 1624, England)
Aside to another thread: I know that's old, but it appears to be the last time someone justified a patent law here and the UK Patent Office still refers to it.
[...]
The risk-takers are the workers and they are the ones that should be rewarded in a fair way
Workers, if by that term you mean employers, are seldom risk takers.
No, I mean the workers. Often that means the employees, but I don't think the patent system should be aimed at employee-employer combinations, which is how it seems at present. Independent workers are important.
- and that isn't done by granting them a
monopoly which they are ill-placed to profit from.
So you are against copyright too ? It's a monopoly you know ...
Are workers ill-placed to profit from it? Arguably still yes, but it seems a lot less clear-cut than for patents: copyright is granted for free, while patents cost hundreds of pounds in form-filing fees alone; copyright material can be exploited by almost anyone now, while patent exploitation seems to involve thousands of pounds of legal fees.
Actually, I probably am basically against copyright, but we are where we are and the Berne Treaty, the internet and free software have done a lot to make copyright fairer for workers.
There should be a unambiguous blanket ban on software patents so that software workers can get on with working, without fearing submarine patents.
I am against software patents as well, but you should use better arguments imo.
So fair trade and worker benefit are not good arguments to you? Then I leave you to make better arguments to people you understand, because I don't understand your values.
FSFE should make that point and make it strongly, for the sake of all workers on free software.
FSFE made this point many times already, you can check it did.
I'm glad to read that.
Thanks,