[Tfug] Microsoft reportedly wants open source software users to pa y rolyalties

[Ronald Sutherland]

Claude Rubinson wrote:
> Can anyone point to a decent justification for software (or business)
> patents?  Because, to me, the whole idea sounds absurd.  As I
> understand it, patents are to protect implementations so as to
> encourage research and innovation which, ultimately, benefits society
> as a whole.  (This, of course, assumes a neoclassical economic model
> which is a questionable assumption, but that's a discussion for
> another time and venue.  Yes, I'm looking at you, Jude...)
>
> What I'm thinking, though, is that I've only heard the FLOSS side of
> the story.  Could it be that I'm misunderstanding the
> [theoretical/social] benefit of software/business patents?  Can anyone
> point to a discussion that argues that software patents do, in fact,
> serve the greater good?
>
> C.

Software patents do seem odd to me. Software is more like writing, which 
is a copyright type art. I’m sure many will disagree on this next point: 
human minds process writing with learned tools. While a CPU processes 
machine code, which is not learned. Python, Java, dotNet are all p-code, 
which is a translation tool for the CPU. So when a computer does its 
thing to a Python script how different is that from the translations 
going on in my mind between character shapes/patterns and my other mind 
tools that end up as thoughts. I guess what I’m saying is a patent of 
the machine, thus the CPU, seems fine but not the flow of ideas though it.

Patents are for ideas that can make or perform, for example an engine 
performs compression, combustion, and expansion to convert some heat 
into mechanical work.

A computer processes binary instructions to perform a sort algorithm. At 
the moment a sort algorithm can be a patent. However things processed 
within the human mind cannot be a patent. A sort algorithm can be done 
in the human mind so this has got confusing in the reading I’v been 
doing. It would seem there must be additional distinctions described in 
the patent that can’t be done in the human mind. The reason for this, at 
least in one book, is that there should never be a monopoly on thought.

At any rate if computers should ever be shown to think, or have a mind 
(what ever the hell that is) I would guess the legal ramifications are 
huge.