Free?

[Chante]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v3ylgbgaeav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:04:18 -0400, Chante <udontspamme at never.will.u> 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:op.v3u2chz6eav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 10:39:54 -0400, Kagamin <spam at here.lot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chante Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While I haven't thought it through (and maybe don't have the
>>>>> knowledge  to
>>>>> do so), elimination of software patents was something I had in mind
>>>>> as a
>>>>> potential cure for the current state of affairs (not a cure for 
>>>>> viral
>>>>> source code though). Of course, noting that first-to-file is now 
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing, it appears (to me) that Big Software Corp and Big Government
>>>>> are
>>>>> on one side, humanity on the other.
>>>>
>>>> Patents are seen to exist for humanity. Elimination of patents is
>>>> equivalent to elimination of intellectual property. You're not going
>>>> to  succeed on that. But GPL3 at least protects you from patent 
>>>> claims
>>>> from  the author, so you'd better use it. You're afraid of others, 
>>>> but
>>>> GPL can  also protect *your* code.
>>>
>>> Patents are to foster innovation.  Software innovation needs no 
>>> patent
>>> system to foster it.  Nobody writes a piece of software because they
>>> were  able to get a patent for it.
>>>
>>> I feel software patents are a completely different entity than 
>>> material
>>> patents.  For several reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. Software is already well-covered by copyright.
>>
>> Software, though, is not like a book: it's not just text. There is
>> inherent design, architecture, engineering represented by source code.
>
> Books require design, sometimes elaborate design, and engineering of 
> sorts.  What an author puts into writing a book is not unlike what an 
> entity puts into writing software.

With a book, the text is the end product. With software, the source code 
is an intermediate representation, or production machine rather than the 
end product. Source code is like a printing press for a specific book. It 
is not like the book. (These analogies are presented more for analysis, 
rather than in direct or opposing response).

>
>>> 2. With few exceptions, the lifetime of utility of a piece of 
>>> software
>>> is  well below the lifetime of a patent (currently 17 years).
>>> 3. It is a very slippery slope to go down.  Software is a purely
>>> *abstract* thing, it's not a machine.
>>
>> Maybe literally "abstract", but those flow charts, layers,
>> boxes-and-arrows actually become realized (rendered, if you will) by 
>> the
>> source code. The text really isn't important. The "abstraction" is.
>
> Software is not unlike math.

I disagree. While one can use software to perform math, that does not 
make software "like math".

> It achieves something based on an abstract  concept of the world.  It 
> has practical uses.

That is too vague/general. Lacks the required amount of substance to be 
useful.

> But math is not patentable.

Given that I don't accept your stance that "software is like math", that 
is then irrelevant.

>>
>>> It can be produced en mass with  near-zero cost.  It can be expressed
>>> via source code, which is *not* a  piece of software.  There is a 
>>> very
>>> good reason things like music, art,  and written works are not
>>> patentable.
>>
>> Music and art don't "do" anything except titilate the senses. 
>> Software,
>> OTOH, does do things of practical utility.
>
> Music and art are both different from software and the same.  They are 
> different because there are no rules for creating valid music or art. 
> I  could bang on the wall randomly with a pipe, and try to sell that as 
> music  (and ironically, I might succeed).  But they are the same 
> because writing  music and creating art that *is good* is a difficult 
> thing that requires  careful thought, planning, and execution.
>

Too vague and non-substantive to be used in support of any position on 
the issue of software patents.