From orre@nada.kth.se  Wed May  9 16:46:24 2001
From: orre@nada.kth.se (Roland Orre)
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 17:46:24 +0200 (MET DST)
Subject: Please stop jokeing, Roland .... ('twas: Re: [Patents] Re: On
 GPL Ideas and Limited Software Patentability)
In-Reply-To: <20010509130513.45077FB21@stabilite.aful.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.30.0105091736100.16217-100000@faun.nada.kth.se>

Dear Krzysztof,

The first reaction to a message like yours would possibly be
to just consider you "st..id" but I don't like seeing people
as that. The term we call stupidity is usually something
related to misunderstanding. People who understand each
other do not call each other stupid. So, from that perspective
stupidity has rarely something to do with IQ, it's usually just
a communication problem.

I'm surprised of your comments of several reasons:

>From your comments you doesn't sound like are a libertarian at all
even though I think that any political discussions we should take
off list as they should be irrelevant for the patentability of
software issue and my political view is not so well defined either.
A political view is merely based upon a vector of value system
parameters which may be somewhat different from different persons.
I'm working towards an optimal system for all.

First, as you call yourself a libertarian and are prepared to
defend Greg's way of treating me, does that imply that you
consider him stupid then?

In that case I'm prepared to defend Greg, because I certainly
not consider him stupid and I'm sure he has understood that
I'm not stupid either.

Greg belive in something, Greg believe that hardware and
software are interchangeble. This does not mean that Greg
is an obcessed supporter of the patent system as such,
which you certainly have understood if you have followed
the discussions.

I can not blame Greg for that view, but his view is futuristic.
We are not there yet. Some day in the future when we have
understood the programming language to model the physcial world
then Greg will be right, but we are far from being there yet,
when we are there we will not need anything like the patent system
for hardware either but I start to merely realize that we should
get rid of the whole patent system quite soon, because it's 20
year time span and limited and costly protection model I don't
consider to be efficient for hardware either.

If we say that we want to get rid of the whole patent system now,
then we get problems, because that means that a lot of people
would become unemployed, and then it's their natural reaction
to defend their positions, becase they want to keep their job.
Even though Greg not necessarily believe in the patent system
he wants to keep his job, it's a natural reaction but it's
a contradiction.

With my idea generation system for generation of new ideas
the patent professionals would not become work less at all,
they could have the most important work of them all, leading
the society forward, to administrate the idea data base.

Another problem today is that there are so many that doesn't
like the patent system and therefore these people are not really
in an optimal situation. This is another of the contradictions
with today's system.

In a coming optimal system we will certainly love these idea
professionals, as they are managing the most important resource
of them all, the idea base for the whole humanity, when we
have a world based upon fair competition and sharable
creativity.

------------

Now, as most of the people on this list have realized, the
patent system is a serious obstacle for software development
and it is a threat to open source. Patentability of software
causes monopolies and delays the technological development.

The reason I consider Greg to have been offending me is that Greg
knows that I have realized this and he should know that from my
perspective the patent system will not protect me and my algorithm
in any reasonable way, if I had to patent it in its whole.

Maybe "offending" is the wrong word then, maybe I should use
intentionally "misleading" or something like that.

When you said:
> I don't like Greg, Roland. But would you attack him for his so-called
> "slander" or "libel", YOU will become the ENEMY OF FREEDOM.
>
> You will be pointed out in each and every libertarian and anti-
> censorship group. Moreover, your case can become another case
> against libel and slander laws. And, though I don't like Greg, I'm
> prepared to *DEFEND* his right to speak what he wants to.

And I guess I have the freedom to react on his statements in whatever
way I want. YOU may call it freedom to try to mislead someone.

He suggested a protection scheme for me which would not really protect me.
Even though my brain is not that very big I'm not that stupid. If someone
tries to lead me into an action which is bad for me, is that really
an expression of freedom?

I'm also pro-free speech and I want a society with as little control
as possible, I'm looking for parameters of the society which can
be optimized. Patentability of software is bad and patentability
of hardware may not be that good either.

	Best regards
	Roland

>> Mr Aharonian,
>> This is the second time you offend me with your answers, but this
>> time I didn't even need to send the offending answer to the list
>> as you sent your offending reply directly to the list yourself.
>
>Ha  ha ha ha ha !!! ;->>
>
>"offended", Roland ???
>
>well, I don't think that Mr Aharonian "offended" you in any way.
>Forget about sueing him. It's a really stupid idea.
>
>Everybody has the RIGHT to express the opinions. Greg, Hartmut,
>me, you and everybody else has the right to "question"
>somebody's abilities, or the _ideas_ they hold.
>
>It is neither libel, nor slander (I oppose lawsuits in both, as I'm a
>libertarian and pro-free speech activist) to say that somebody "has
>poor ideas" and so on. It is only the libel to claim falsely about
>_THE PERSON_ not criticize his/her activity.
>
>it is slander to offend a PERSON, not eir work.
>For example, if I said that a song by a group X is "a piece of crap"
>they may do NOTHING to me. It's my right to hold such opinion
>and express it. even if they could sue me for calling THEM "a piece
>of crap", they may not sue me for calling their work in such terms.
>
>Moreover, America has virtually NO libel and slander laws. Only
>'sexual harassment at work' but it doesn't apply here :))
>There is First Amendment in US Constitution, which defends the
>freedom of speech.
>
>I don't like Greg, Roland. But would you attack him for his so-called
>"slander" or "libel", YOU will become the ENEMY OF FREEDOM.
>
>You will be pointed out in each and every libertarian and anti-
>censorship group. Moreover, your case can become another case
>against libel and slander laws. And, though I don't like Greg, I'm
>prepared to *DEFEND* his right to speak what he wants to.
>
>So, if you're prepared to attack him, be prepared to be attacked by
>the *whole anti-censorship movement* and *whole libertarian
>movement*.
>
>ZERO TOLERANCE FOR CENSORSHIP !!!
>(patent, anti-libel, anti-slander and other censorship)
>
>Bad Luck !!
>    In The Name of The Liberty !!
>        Critto





