Re: [Patents] US patent reform strategy inaugurated by myths & lies

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

Sylvain rambles:
>Considering the average software innovation cycle, a 20 years patent
>protection would be a measure against free competition and freedom o
>choice for the customers.

Which has no basis in actual market practices.  It also ignores the
original question.  If 20 years is too long for patents, why isn't
100+ years too long for copyright for source code, unless indeed
copyright offers little effective protection for source code and
therefore it doesn't matter how long the protection is (which then
renders copyright useless for source code).

Also your argument is meaningless because hardware innovation cycles are
increasingly no different than software innovation cycles, in fact
probably shorter.  I tend to run the same software on newer CPUs and
memory chips.

So where are your complaints against the term of hardware patents?
Indeed for most industries, innovation cycles are getting shorter,
even chemicals and pharmaceuticals.  Which once again illustrates how
software is just another industry, nothing holy.  Hey, maybe that's
the motivation - Hartmut wants to start the Church of Software and
be the high priest.

Greg Aharonian