[Patents] public interest and appropriation instinct

[Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com]

>But since you want to quibble, there is (fortunately) no free biotech,
>like there is free software.

Wrong again, Bernard.  Much of the human genome sequencing efforts
around the world are funded by governments, and all of the results
are put in the public domain.  That is as free biotech, as open source
is free software.  And given that much DNA is known to be informational,
these biotech efforts can easily be called wet open source.  Once again,
nothing special about software.

>And free software does contribute to society to the economy, whether you
>like it or not.

Once again, you put words in my mouth.  I never said that free software
doesn't contribute to the economy, nor do I deny its contribution.  Come
up with a better lie.

In fact, you open sourcers are late to the game.  It was invented by
physicists and mathematicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who regularly
swapped large computer programs in source code form amongst research
institutions. I used to do computational physics in the early 1980s,
and swapped codes, ironically, with researchers at CERN.  It was no
surprise to me that a physicist there came up with a useful tool (HTML)
and shared it with the world - physicists at CERN had been doing that
for decades.

Similarly, my Web site makes a nice contribution to society, and uses
mostly free software.

So come up with better lies.  I fully support anyone who wants to donate
their software contribution freely to the public.  I also fully support
anyone with an novel and unobvious software technology to get a patent on
it.  It is a choice that they should be free to make, a freedom they get
to take advantage of.  I guess you want to restrict part of their freedom
in the name of the state.  I don't suppose you are writing some open
source software to make the trains in Europe run better on time?

Greg Aharonian