From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 22:03:04 MST
Hal Finney wrote:
> Samantha writes:
>
>
>>As an innovator myself I could
>>care less about protecting my ideas. What I most want is to get
>>my innovations in common use and see my ideas be the springboard
>>for still other ideas. Money is not my primary motivation as
>>long as I have enough to continue doing the things I am
>>interested in.
>
>
> Therefore, you will not seek patent protection, will you?
>
>
That is correct. I consider software patents immoral.
>>I do not think I am alone in this. So I find
>>this argument for patents to be empty.
>
>
> If everyone were like you, no one would use patents, so the issue would be
> moot. The problem only arises with regard to inventors who are interested
> in protecting their ideas, since that is the function of patents.
> Refusing to consider such inventors renders discussion impossible.
> Your approach to this problem is fundamentally self-contradictory.
>
You are confusing an argument for patents with the function of
patents. But if what is argued for is itself not conducive to
the our greater wellbeing then the argument fails. The
inventors themselves are not the only parties that should be
considered. My approach is not in the least contradictory. If
patents do not lead to greater innovation and to greater
progress at least in some areas such as software then patents
are unjustifiable in at least some such areas. If you are
arguing strictly from the point of the view of the innovators
then I think you should check with some of the innovators to see
what we in fact consider important and whether we believe
patents are in our interest.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 22:02:21 MST