Re: Is b-tree index patented?

"Michael Gast" <mig-sm_at_web.de> wrote in message news:3F9CF5F7.3080107_at_web.de...
> >> 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.
>
> Why? Please explain.
>
> > 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?
>
> What i did is to ask for an explanation of the difference - and the only
> answer i get is that my 'line is fuzzy' including the _false_assertion_
> i stated "one click shopping" to be "nonexciting", "obvious" or
> "ridiculous". Please try to explain the difference between my two
examples:
> '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?

Michael,

I don't feel like we need to go through those arguments, because Ullman covered the topic much better. I was unaware of his article at the moment when I started the thread.

Ullman argues that programming gives us so much power that even average programmer is able to come up with the solution in most of the practical situations. Certainly, it becomes ridiculous when a programmer would patent his mediocre solution. This doesn't automatically imply, however, that there is no innovation in software. But if there is innovation, there must be patents. Received on Mon Oct 27 2003 - 18:17:18 CET