[Patents] Bruce Perens: ...

[Robert.Bielik@gyrosmicro.com (Robert Bielik)]

Dear Greg,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregory Aharonian [mailto:srctran@world.std.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:03 
> To: 'patents@liberte.aful.org'; Robert Bielik
> Subject: Re: [Patents] Bruce Perens: ...
> 
> 
> Robert, try reading and thinking about what I say.  You say I 
> am against
> all patents "so he implies by saying that all patentable technologies
> experience the same difficulties" is not something that I imply.  You
> are putting false words in my mouth, a common practice on this list.
> 

That may be true, and if so I'm sorry for that. However, "common practice"
would apply to
you too.

> 
> I beleive hardware and software are equally patentable, and 
> that patent
> offices are having problems examining such patents.  But my solution,
> as it has been for many years despite the false distortions spread on
> this list, has always been to give the patent offices more 
> resources to
> do their jobs better, to get rid of most of the bad patents, 
> bad hardware
> and bad software, that are being issued.
> 

More resources. How much more? For making it work it would take a lot more
resources 
than any government would be willing to grant. And seeing software patent
applications
accelerating by the minute in the US, I don't see how it would be possible
at all.

> What makes me tick?  Simple.  Making the existing systems work better
> for issuing both hardware and software patents, as opposed to 
> many on this list who are against
> both hardware and software patents.

Work better. Mmmm. Then why not wait to incorporate software into
patentability when it
does work better ? Would it be easier to make it work better if software
would be
patentable ? I think not.

/Robert