[Patents] Patnews on Pierret

[dmarti@zgp.org (Don Marti)]

begin Gregory Aharonian quotation of Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 06:04:49PM -0400:

> This is a purely economic argument, which a) is not compatible with IP
> law, and b) has a dubious premise, making the conclusion dubious.

"Intellectual property" is not a natural right or a mathematical
theorem.  

In the US, it is a legal construct that exists for the same reason that
the Interstate Highway System exists -- because the Constitution gives
Congress the right to make certain kinds of laws to promote economic
growth.

There are places in this country where it would be a bad idea to put
an interstate highway -- across the wide part of Lake Michigan, say.
The cost would outweigh the benefit.

Likewise, there are certain kinds of content where the costs of
paving over with patents are greater than any possible benefit.

I concede your point that the processes of hardware design and
software development can be similar.  But invent a process for
butchering a hog, and it's patentable.  Use the same process for
surgery on a human being, it's not. (Well, you can patent it,
but not bring an infringement claim)  By "logic" they should both
be patentable, or neither.

Did BT just slink away from suing Prodigy?  I haven't heard anything
about that case recently.

-- 
Don Marti              "I've never sent or received a GIF in my life."
http://zgp.org/~dmarti    -- Bruce Schneier, Secrets and Lies, p. 246.
dmarti@zgp.org    Free the Web, burn all GIFs: http://burnallgifs.org/