[Patents] simple questions

[dewaz dewaz@ran.es]

Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> >Being honest, I should acknowledge that I am speculating, but I think
> >that in the HALF TERM patenting software will stagnate IT.
> 
> Speculating wrong.  There is no empirical evidence that developments
> in IT have stagnated at any time in the last thirty years.

Speculate:To conjecture without knowing the complete facts.
Conjecture:The formation of conclusion from incomplete evidence;guess.
Humm english is not my language but I still think that "speculate" is
not 
wrong here.
Continuing speaking from a linguistic approach, I used "will" then, 
Why you speak about the "last thirty years".
Please us with your intelligent opinions about NEXT thirty years if
patenting is allowed next month:FUTURE.
Explanations will be welcome.

>  Just
> walk into an engineering library and see the growing amount of
> shelf space needed for all of the books, journals and conferences
> dealing with IT.  There is also no emprical evidence that the rate
> of growth of developements in IT have stagnated at any time in the
> last thirty years.  Indeed, in the formative years of the software
> industry, 1970-1994, when there was a fair amount of software
> patenting, it would have been difficult to argue that software
> patents were stagnating IT because outside of some big companies,
> no one was paying attention to software patents to then be
> negatively influenced.
> 
> Additionally, in the last thirty years, if you ask software companies
> which effects have had the greatest impact on their profitability
> and stock market price, software patents will be low down on the list.
> 
> One can argue from these observations that "who needs software
> patents then?", i.e., things wouldn't have been too much different
> in the software industry had there been no software patents.  One
> can also argue the exact opposite, that things wouldn't have been
> too much different in the software industry because of software
> patents. 

Allowing a behaviour that breaks a law because of lack of
enforcement(nowadays) is not the same that allowing the behaviour thanks
to a law(future).
Economic consequences wouldn't be equivalent.

> You can't resolve this issue by the economic impact of
> software patents on the software industry (or all industries -
> many of you keep on forgetting that most software patents are
> for "embedded" systems - not pure software like a sorting
> algorithm or something).

Many of us  would be grateful to you for ever if try to differenciate in
a
law when soft is for "embedded systems" and when "pure software".

Is this a new theory like that of soft for "implementing theories" and
soft for "solving technical problems"(being just this last one
patentable)?





-- 
Futuro Agonico S.A es propietaria de la patente 4129583 que protege el 
proceso de respuesta de correos electronicos.
Evite acciones judiciales subscribiendo nuestro preceptivo canon.
http://www.ran.es/personal/dewaz/paynow.htm