From: Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@xxxxxxxx> > He's not talking about patents in general but software patents. > All software patents are bad, and virtually all software patents are > patents on _common_ideas_ I completely disagree. There are countless, innovative software patents in many areas -- especially 3D, semiconductor, etc... You can't start eliminating software patents altogether without throwing away a lot of innovation. The problem is the "one-click" and other non-sense. Don't blame the entire patent concept as the problem because of the stupid patents that are granted. The US needs massive patent reform, yes, I don't disagree with that. But do away with all software patents? Sorry, that's the wrong move. Companies are expending a lot of funds to research many ideas. *NOT* Microsoft -- don't think of Microsoft when you think of software patents. Think of companies that truly innovate. They are rare compared to the crap that is granted, but they do exist. Sorry, but I have to say that the community is not always entitled to the absolutely latest innovations in many areas that are truly novel. Thankfully we do have companies who make them available and usable by even community software in open standard APIs. That is a very nice touch, and should be appreciated. > Feel free to be the first to draw the line in the sand from whereupon > it's a common idea or not. Nobody was ever able to clearly define > that, so what you say is very nice in principle, but unfeasible in > practice. The problem is the _lack_ of "peer review" in the patent system. Regulation, legislation and laws have _never_ solved problems as good as putting "peer experts" on the problem. That has always been the problem, people always wanting to go to more legislation, instead of relying on peer experts and industry-based approaches. > But this is getting more and more off-topic. I didn't introduce it. Some people want to introduce their political agendas here, and I'm merely trying to show the other side. I'm sure that's "annoying" at times, but I'm trying to let people know how to avoid being viewed as "community radicals" by others. If you want Linux to engage the corporate world, you have show them how things should and should not work. Not that the entire system is wrong, because if you take away the absolutes, it's really just skewed, and _can_ be fixed. I think Red Hat's new venture in getting companies to work together in a common patent pool is the most _helpful_ and most _American_ thing I have ever seen, and it's why I continue to believe Red Hat is the _best_ Linux company in the world. It believes strongly in community, yet understand that community is about _choice_ -- be it an individual or corporation. And not some ideal of federated mandate where not everyone might agree. Corporations and individuals who ban together in a community by choice will topple those who abuse IP, marketshare and other, unethical tactics. It is a far better, far safer, for more useful approach than by federated mandate that says "we know better than you." -- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx --------------------------------------------------------------------- It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele- mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism. So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;-> -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
