[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Visionaries] Exploring the noosphere

From: Dean Michael Berris
Subject: Re: [Visionaries] Exploring the noosphere
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 19:05:58 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313

however, the essence of free software and the open source movement is about freedom to the source. the idea is to put it in where everyone can be able to see, use, modify, and hack at.

for example, the linux kernel. if linus torvalds hadn't put it under the GPL and allowed everyone else to be able to look at, hack at, and use the kernel, someone else wouldv'e put a lid on it before he did and called it his own. previous art could be used as a base for a modification for which you will apply a patent for (look at the inline skates, the aircraft engine, and many more). more exactly, if the linux kernel wasn't under the GPL and wasn't copyrighted to linus torvalds, some greedy hacker-con-businessman would've gotten the source, modified it as a new operating system design and concept being different from linux (i.e. microkernel architecture instead of monolithic style) and apply and get a patent for. had that happened, who knows what would've happened to linux...

so the point i'm driving at here, is that yes -- we have to get there first and allow everyone else to be able to get there too, but not take everything for their own. it's much like a playground where the poineers (or the makers) could claim for all their lives that they built it. but having it opened to the public allows others to get there too, but not claim it for their own. a playground isn't as fun if it werent open to the public, and ideas from the users wouldn't get through to the makers if they hadn't opened it in the first place.

so i agree, not only for the race to ground breaking technology in open source and free software, but to the improvement of the current state of software development.

more power to all of us.

David Sugar wrote:
I will offer a counter-point to this idea. Doing this can be used to create "prior art" that may successfully overturn a future patent, but such an outcome is neither certain, nor prevents others from successfully securing "invalid" patents anyway against ignorent examiners, and then potentially causing emmense problems until/unless somebody then comes along with enough funds comes along to make use of the prior art thus posted. There is also some risk that establishing such a list or site may itself become a source for patent "mining" by unscroupoulus entities who will realize the cost of securing the patent is less than the cost required by others to overturn it.



aka Dean Michael C. Berris
home +63 49 5680142
work +63 49 5680024
pgp key ID = 0xF9501761

Version: 3.12
GCS d- s:+ a--- C++ UL++ P+ L+++ E- W+ N* o K w--
O---- M- V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t+ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI+ D+
G e h! r+ y+

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]