From: Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2004-12-03T10:32:16+09:00
Subject: Re: SOT gmail invites

On Friday, December 3, 2004, 12:18:01 PM, Gavin wrote:

> On Friday, December 3, 2004, 9:25:50 AM, Bill wrote:

>> Software patents are like, if you play guitar, Eddie Van Halen
>> patenting Tapping (two-handed hammer-on technique).  The damned
>> *IDEA* is the easy part.  It's the implementation that's hard.

> In building software, though, turning ideas into profit is an
> expensive and risky exercise.  Much more so than busting a few guitar
> moves.

> Once you've seen the benefit of an idea you'd never have thought of
> yourself, the implementation is often trivial.  Just like many guitar
> techniques :)  Entity A proves the commercial viability of an idea at
> great expense; entities B-Z exploit that idea at no expense.  The
> first-mover advantage very often _doesn't_ apply in software, as
> pioneers don't have the scale to fully capitalise on their ideas.

> I'm not arguing for or against the matter at hand here.  I think the
> current situation is a matter of some valid but bague principles being
                                                  vague
> exploited with all the desparation and environmental soundness of a
> goldrush.

Sorry,
Gavin

P.S. While I'm here, remember this about software patents.  On their
own, most of them wouldn't hold up in court.  They're used for
bullying small players (tragically), but perhaps mainly for bargaining
chips in disputes/negotiations with other big players.  Thus Microsoft
gets annoyed at IBM copying a technique, they demand a payment, both
sides produce relevant patent portfolios, and negotiate a more
reasonable payment (perhaps nothing).