From: Eivind Eklund Date: 2006-02-01T03:29:07+09:00 Subject: Re: About rant on Dave Thomas site, titled 'imitation...' On 1/30/06, Matthew Smillie wrote: > Ah, but what about when popular, marketing-savvy Ms Q "popularises" > something legitimately claimed by quiet, introverted, and previously > unknown Mr Z? [...] > > So while it's clear to me that the current patent framework is > hideously broken at the moment (patent applications have an inverse > correlation with %R&D spend in software - what does THAT tell you?), > this does not mean that a legal framework for creativity rights can > or should be done away with; there's no other way to protect the > rights of people like Mr Z. To me, it's not clear that we can create a system where the average Mr Z will be better off than in a system with no restrictions. Being an occasional parallell inventor (or a Mr Z -I don't know which), it is not entirely clear to me that we should, either. An example: About ten years ago, I invented the idea of using secure hashes as a reference in version control systems, allowing re-use of the same data and layering of metadata. Similar ideas appear in Git, Monotone, and a system Compaq had that I've forgotten the name of. While not having capacity to implement it alone, I've tried to plug a design based on this for a long while. I don't know if that's been the source of inspiration for Git, or Monotone, or Compaq, or if that's parallell invention. On the other hand, does it matter? It seems clear to me that the world be worse off if they hadn't been able to use that idea, for instance by me protecting it. I've had ideas grabbed and software used outside my license, and while it's a bit aggrevating, in reality, it usually makes the world a better place. It empowers those that actually want to create things and get them out there, and makes the world overall go forward. I'm much more aggrevated about the cases where I've wanted to do things and couldn't than I'm by the ones where others have wanted to and has "exploited" me. Eivind.