Free?

[Timon Gehr]

On 10/26/2011 11:50 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 17:45:45 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.gehr at gmx.ch> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2011 11:38 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:28:21 -0400, Kagamin <spam at here.lot> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> patents exist to give an *incentive* to give away trade secrets that
>>>>> would
>>>>> otherwise die with the inventor. The idea is, if you patent something,
>>>>> you enjoy a period of monopoly, where you can profit from the
>>>>> fruits of
>>>>> your invention.
>>>>
>>>> I think, this can work for software the same way.
>>>
>>> You can profit from the fruits of your invention *without* patents. You
>>> can with machines as well, but software has the added bonus that
>>> copyright protects your IP.
>>>
>>> But it's much harder to reverse engineer how someone built a machine
>>> than it is to reverse engineer how software is built.
>>
>> If it is, for example, a remote web service, reverse engineering is
>> difficult.
>
> If you don't sell it, then there should be no point of patenting it. You
> have much better protection by keeping it secret...
>
> But today we have patents of these things, because they stifle
> innovation. It creates artificial barriers that only exist because
> people have gamed the system.
>
> -Steve

You are right.