> Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do

> Most programmers on this forum, especially those working open source, are opposed to software patents as currently implemented. They make it impossible to do anything non-trivial without running the risk of being sued for infringing what should probably be considered a basic technique. You raise some valid points. But you're not really disagreeing with me, are you? You say "as currently implemented", which means that you agree in principle to the concept. And if, if you recall, the comment I was replying was questioning whether royalties should exist at all; they weren't suggesting that it be "tweaked", rather that it be abolished altogether. I'm saying that's a pretty extreme view, and used the similar case of software patents to make my point. In any case, I agree that there is a tradeoff, and it's true that in some cases -- especially software patents --we've gotten to a kind of silly season. But I don't think all patents -- even the majority of patents -- are egregious. Perhaps I was too restrictive in specifying software patents. A new question: do you not agree with patents in general? I think it's much harder to argue that, for instance, a pharmaceutical that invests billions of dollars on a new treatment shouldn't be protected from a competitor simply copying its product and putting it to the market. I'm basically arguing that the concept of intellectual property is a valid and fair one. Obviously there can be debates about details, but the principle, in my view, is sound, and even the most ardent of open-source adherents agrees as much, else why the meticulous emphasis on the precise terms of licenses like the GPL? If you don't believe the creator has "ownership" over something that can be copied at zero cost, how can you argue against, for instance, Tivoization? > The musical analogy would be something like copyright of chord progressions I would have thought that the musical analogy is copyright, which refers to an expression -- a somewhat nebulous term but which is nonetheless amenable to common sense judgements. To patent chord progressions would obviously be silly, because there's relatively few of them that sound good. And yes, I am 100% confident that my songs (shameless plug: http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsuk) are sufficiently distinct from anything else that I could argue that in a court of law and prevail! They are indeed original expressions ;) To answer your questions: 1) You mean from patent infringement? Yes, I would think so. 2) No; I work in a hedge fund. To open-source our strategies would be commercial suicide. I suppose that gives me a different outlook from you. ;)