-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 28 Sep 2003 at 12:11, Fergal Daly wrote:
I don't care how it's done legally, but I cannot be swayed from the notion that if a person or group contributes significantly to the improvement of their fellow man, they should be adequately rewarded. This is one of the best features of capitalism - that taking risk is rewarded ie; entrepreneurship.
This bit puzzles me. This is exactly the purpose of patents, so why were you against software patents? Was it simply due to the excessive duration? In which case what about shit-hot clever ideas who's time has not yet come?
Do you think that software patents are not fundamentally flawed, just implemented badly?
I am opposed to anything which restricts the freedom of ideas to make software. I strongly support anything which adequately rewards a person's contribution to the improvement of their fellow man.
Since software patents seeks to restrict the freedom of ideas behind software, they are fundamentally flawed. But I'm fine with something restricting temporarily the implementation of software so sufficient reward can be earned to give to the programmer for their work.
This isn't copyright BTW. Copyright protects the expression of ideas and so theoretically is the right approach. My problem is that it was written with books in mind and so is an ill fit for software plus it has become unenforceable in the current age. Therefore it will increasingly not reward the person contributing to the improvement of their fellow man, and thus needs replacing with something which will.
Cheers, Niall