3 ms·
> We are discussing two ways to promote progress. No, we're discussing the reason patents exist. > The way you're suggesting is to give inventors I'm not sug
by gnaritas 13y ago
> We are discussing two ways to promote progress.
No, we're discussing the reason patents exist.
> The way you're suggesting is to give inventors
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm simply stating why patents exist.
> My point is that neither of these methods are effective at promoting progress in software.
Software should not be patentable at all, so we're not in disagreement there.
- dllthomas 13y ago> No, we're discussing the reason patents exist. The reason patents exist, as you've repeatedly asserted, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We are discussing two mechanisms by which that might be accomplished (and by which it is quite arguably accomplished in some fields).
- gnaritas 13y ago> The reason patents exist, as you've repeatedly asserted, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. Then our discussion is over as that is the only point I was making. > We are discussing two mechanisms by which that might be accomplished No we are not, as how to accomplish promoting science was not anything I commented on at all. You may be trying to discuss it, but I'm not interested in that digression.
- dllthomas 13y ago> No we are not, as how to accomplish promoting science was not anything I commented on at all. That is explicitly what you commented on, twice. I can go into more details if you need them, but geeze...
- gnaritas 13y agoNo I didn't.
- dllthomas 13y agoYes, yes you did. One example: "[M]otivating inventors was not the purpose of patents, it's merely the side effect of the method used to get inventors to give up their trade secrets."
- gnaritas 13y agoThat doesn't support your point, it supports mine.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dllthomas 13y agoYou seriously need to explain how, because as far as I can tell your claim here is nothing but brain-damage. As we've agreed, "promoting the progress of science and useful arts" is the purpose of patents. PROMOTING DISCLOSURE IS A MECHANISM, and PROMOTING INVENTION IS A MECHANISM and YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT BOTH, dismissing the former as ancillary and pushing the latter as central. A claim that you weren't talking about mechanisms... baffles me. Without some clarification, I'm calling it quits on this thread.
- gnaritas 13y agoNo I was not talking about both, I dismissed them as mechanisms to bring the point back to the only thing I was discussing, the goal. I don't care about the mechanisms and if you can't see that then maybe you've got some brain damage to cope with and you should stop talking.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- 13y ago