Subject:
|
Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jan 2000 04:15:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1611 times
|
| |
|
|
Random paranthetical aside:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Extending the (apparently) libertarian idea that one should be able to
> > protect oneself, or pay for ~, why have patents at all? Why not just
> > have the requirement to keep things a closely guarded secret if you
> > want them to remain secret?
>
>
> You can do that if you wish. Coke did, seems to work for them.
Coke's formula really wasn't a secret. Pepsi long had the
knowledge and ability to replicate Coke's formula. They just
never bother to duplicate the formula, because they thought their
own formula tasted better.
When Coke abandoned their original formula (to change to a much
less expensive formula that happened to taste a lot like Pepsi),
Pepsi seriously considered and began taking steps to release a
"coke clone" in order to mop up the sales of disatisfied Coke
customers who were upset with the change. If Coke hadn't
quickly reversed their decision and reintroduced the original formula
in the front of mass public rejection, Pepsi would have been more
than happy to provide ex Coke drinkers with what they wanted.
>
> However
> if someone else susses it out, you're stuck.
Yup.
> I support some sort of
> framework around ideas as property, although the current one is a bit
> creaky. Should they expire? A back of the envelope
> "rights calculation" says no. Feel free to carry out your own derivation
> and report back.
Another random aside:
In the field of software, algorithms that IMHO should never be allowed
to be patented are granted patents. For example, someone patented
the usual Y2K fix of comparing a 2-digit number with a certain "boundary
number" to determine whether that 2 digit number represented a year in the
20th or 21st century.
This is the same idea that many thousands of Y2K programmers have
independantly come up with on their own, and I think it's ludicrous
for someone to claim that any Y2K bug-fix that relies on that notion
owes that patent-holder money. I think it was profoundly misguided
of the patent office to grant that patent.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
