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

[Xavier Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:00:15PM -0400, Gregory Aharonian wrote:
> 
> 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

Because copyright does not stop people from making aliving off their 
code, and patents do. That's why software patents are bad for any
term greater than 0. 

> 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).
>

Copyright is useless for code because it does not feed patent busters, 
maybe?. 
 
> 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.

You're right in  a way: 
I don't think  it is a matter of time and terms. Information cannot 
be patented because it is a contradiction to grant monopolies in 
information in exchange for publishing that very same information.  
Monopolised publication is absurd. Software patents are information 
patents, and therefore absurd. But I won't argue with you again, 
I've already tried a few times and it wasn't constructive at all.