Re: Is b-tree index patented?

"Michael Gast" <mig-sm_at_web.de> wrote in message news:3F968141.4080501_at_web.de...
> 1. Computer software is protected by international copy rights. From my
> point of view as a software analyst, architect and developer this fits
> for my company and for me.
>
> 2. The success of the internet only was possible due to open standards.
> RSA was protected by a patent and did not share this success. I think
> that Software patents would inhibit the definition and acceptance of
> open software standards in the future.
>
> 3. Software patents are a good (may be the only) way for the big players
> in the software sector to get more power - they own most of the patents
> and therefore they can prohibit the raise of competitors by denying
> licenses, revoking given licenses or by claiming high license fees.
>
> 4. I think that algorithms are the natural fundament of mathematics and
> therefore can be compared with other categories of laws of nature. E.g.
> no one really can claim to 'invent' the gravitational theory - it
> existed in the past, still exists and (i hope so) will continue to
> exist, disredarding if anyone discover it, as Newton and Einstein did in
> this case in the past.
>
> 5. Last but not least: Could anyone explain me the substantial
> difference between:
> 'the idea to use of vehicles rolling on wheels to transport goods'
> and
> 'the idea to use of a button in an internet shop to buy goods'
> (i have one-click shopping patent of amazon in my mind)
>
> In both cases, there was nothing new. Why should one of this ideas be
> protected by a patent and the other idea not?
>
> IMO there is only one group that has real advantages in algorithm and
> software patents - the advocates.

But that applies to any patent, doesn't it? A patent imposes some restrictions, and slows the progress because of these limitations. The cost of goods is higher, because it should cover license fees. What possible benefits to society any patent serves? You are trying to draw a distiction, but the line is fuzzy.

Could you try to dismiss "one click shopping" patent on some logically established ground? What exactly is wrong with it, except the fuzzy feeling of "nonexciting", "obvious" and even "ridiculous"? How can you measure those adjectives and perhaps establish a threshold to admit only "great" patents? Received on Wed Oct 22 2003 - 19:33:40 CEST