[OT] Free software versus software idea patents

[Ben Finney]

geremy condra <debatem1 at gmail.com> writes:

> […] I think it's quite reasonable to contend that the existence of
> lambda calculus no more rules out the applicability of patents to
> software (which I detest) than it rules out the applicability of
> patents to hardware (which I find only slightly less ridiculous) or
> other meatspace inventions.

That matches my own position on the topic.

Further, most software idea patents are worded so that they give lip
service to the theory that pure algorithms can't be patented; they tie
the patent to “A machine for computation plus [insert broad obfuscated
description of algorithm here]”. Yessir, this is an amazing invention of
ours to turn this general-purpose computer into a machine that does what
we want it to do. Patenting ideas? You must be thinking of someone else.

So, even if the theory of non-patentable algorithms were to stand up in
most jurisdictions, it doesn't have any force against the software idea
patents that are actually problematic.

-- 
 \       “Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day; give him a |
  `\    religion, and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish.” |
_o__)                                                       —Anonymous |
Ben Finney