[d@DCC] Anti-creator Greg Aharonian seeks the extreme: software only under patent, not copyright.

[John Lange]

Software is an expression of an idea, not an invention.

Expressions of ideas are covered in copyright law.

Inventions are covered by patents.

Patenting creative expression is like Ian Fleming writing a James Bond
novel and then taking out a patent on "books that deal with spy's who
work for MI6". No other author would then be allowed to write such a
novel.

Or Vincent van Gogh painting sunflowers and then patenting "portraits of
sunflowers". If you would like to paint sunflowers you would have to
first get a license from van Gogh and pay him a royalty.

Or Amazon writing code so that you can click on a picture of a book to
purchase it and then patenting "one click purchasing". This is the kind
of "brilliant" innovation that software patents reward.

As a software creator myself (my primary source of income), does the
ability to patent software fuel my creativity and motivate me to
"invent" new software? NO. Exactly the opposite. Every time I write
software I am aware that I'm likely (unknowingly) infringing on numerous
patents. If one of the patent holders should happen to take notice I
would be instantly bankrupted.

Software patents are the worst of a bad bunch of idea's designed to
protect intellectual property.

-- 
John Lange
OpenIT ltd.
(204) 885 0872

On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 10:37, Wallace J.McLean wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Russell McOrmond <russell at flora.ca>
> Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 11:32 am
> Subject: [d at DCC] Anti-creator Greg Aharonian seeks the extreme: 
> software only under patent, not copyright.
> 
> Explain why software under patent is a bad idea.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at list.digital-copyright.ca
> http://list.digital-copyright.ca/mailman/listinfo/discuss