Re: [OT] Patent protection

[Mitch Stone <mstone@vc.net>]

--- From a message sent by Eric M. Hopper on 12/14/99 10:03 PM ---

>> No "rethinking" of the current state of the law is necessary to allay
>> your concern.
>
>	I find a worrisome crop of things currently being patented and
>copywritten.  I was merely trying to find a way to articulate my concern
>in such a way as to make the problem that concerns me obvious.
>
>	Oh, well.  Here is probably not the place for such a discussion.

I think this is entirely on-topic. Technology appears to be blurring the 
line of what can and cannot be patented. For one, Celera Genomics has 
been feverishly filing patents on the human gene sequence. Pretty scary 
stuff. 

We spend quite a bit of time discussing nonproprietary approaches 
software development (open source) and the manipulation of patented and 
copyrighted software products to achieve monopoly power. Some would argue 
that patents are in effect legalized monopolies. 

We've also talked quite a lot about what kinds of technologies may 
constitute "standards" in the computer industry. To my thinking, a 
standard must be something not owned or defined by a single player in the 
business, so perhaps the question of what can and should be offered 
copyright protection is germane. 

Also, the entire present character of the computer industry is predicated 
on the failure of IBM to maintain its copyrights on the PC. I've always 
argued that this should be understood as much more than just an 
historical curiosity/footnote.

The government had to come to grips with patent issues in the 
pharmaceutical industry, imposing restrictions and limitations. Perhaps 
the same reasoning needs to be explored in software. If so, to what 
extent? These are interesting and potentially useful questions, IMO.

Mitch Stone
mstone@vc.net