Re: [Patents] philosophical aspects of software patents

["mi.ro@iol.it" <mi.ro@iol.it>]

> Bernard writes:
> >This MEP is mistaken as to the role of patents to begin with ...
> >Patents are intended "to promote Progress of Science and useful Arts"
> >and to help economic growth.
>
...

Hi all. I'm sorry for my english. Forgive me in case of errors.
I think that philosophically, patenting a trap mouse or a LZW compression 
algorithm is the same matter. Both cases include patenting an original idea, 
that can be invented and described by writing with a pen on some paper. The 
media that implements the idea comes later.
The problem is in the economy, and it is a philosophical problem too. Given 
that a liberal society relies on rules granting rights to the individuals. It 
works this way.
What to say in a case where you have a economic system, where thousands of 
people use to write their own software alone? With an investemnt of 500 euro 
to buy a personal computer?
If you get a law that kills their own ambitions, can we still call it a 
liberal law?
You may say that this is irrelevant, that in the real world software 
inventions need huge investments that a single citizen cannot afford. It is 
false: the vim community says they are threaten by swpats.
A law capable to kill the vim project cannot be called "liberal". A liberal 
society has to get into account "social enterprises" as a economic matter, 
because they realize part of the economy.

Regards. Roberto Micarelli