[Patents] Economic assessment

[Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com]

If Hartmut wonders I don't respond to his semantic challenges on
the nature of software and other words, it is because I find it
unprofessional of him to continue to be so insulting:

    >Ed Avis responded to an often-reiterated troll question:

If Hartmut's command of language is so unprofessional that he has
to rely on insults to make his case, then a priori I question is
command of words like "software", "technicity" and other such.

That this list continues to allow Hartmut to be so insulting makes
me skeptical that your cause will prevail.

So if Hartmut would like to apologize to me for continuing to be
so insulting, and to everyone else on this list for exposing them
to his insults, I would be inclined to provide serious counter
arguments, starting with the fact that there is no a-priori reason
why the patent system of the 21st century should not be adapted to
protect the informational, the leading TECHNOLOGIES of the day,
just as the MECHANICAL was the leading technologies of the 19th
century, and the ELECTRICAL/CHEMICAL was the leading technologies
of the 20th century.  If the expressionist elements of hardware
and software are protectable by copyright, and if the functional
elements of hardware are protectable by patents, especially in 
light of hardware/software codesign tools, the functional elements
of software are and should be protectable as well, no matter how
many words like "technicity" are invented in an ill-defined way to
pretend otherwise.

Greg Aharonian