On Sun, 26 Sep 2004, Michael Hammer wrote:
So what's the difference between your idea as software or your idea
encoded on a silicon chip? By your logic the latter should be
patentable and the former not.
The VHDL or whatever specification that drives the chip layout should be not
be patentable. It is software. Actual process inventions like xray masks,
new materials and the like should be patentable (even if they involve software
to drive the machines). Chip logic designers are probably violating software
patents right and left just like the rest of us, but since their designs are
closed source, no one knows (and those with the source are not anxious to find
out). This is why patents are being revved up as a weapon to kill open source.
The real problem is that patents are being given for things (software)
which are not really inventions.
Yeah, real software inventions that only 2 or three people thought of
are really rare (e.g. RSA). It wouldn't be so bad if only real
software inventions were patented. How do you propose to accomplish this?
And why should we work on that angle when software and idea patents
were never explicitly authorized in the first place (in fact, just the
opposite)? In my view, the real problem is case law gone beserk.
BTW, your approach with the snat is something that load balancer
vendors have been doing for years (for example F5 and Nortel/Alteon).
As I said, I'm sure I wasn't the first to think of it. That is the
point. The vast majority of software inventions are largely dictated
by the problem and the existing tools - hence are independently
invented by thousands of people. Software patents are not encouraging software
invention, they are being used to squash software invention.
--
Stuart D. Gathman <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
Business Management Systems Inc. Phone: 703 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
"Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" - background song for
a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from here?" commercial.