On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:36:54 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 23:20:47 -0000,
> Rick <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 17:37:07 -0500, Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:13:36 -0800, Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <hfb085-skd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> It's FUD, pure and simple, and every time they try it, they should
>>>>> be called on it. Put up, or shut up. Simple as that.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, for years, one of the big arguments for patent reform has been
>>>> that companies like Microsoft get broad patents from a lax patent
>>>> office, and that these cover much open source software.
>>>>
>>>> And now, when Microsoft says THE SAME THING FREE SOFTWARE ADVOCATES
>>>> HAVE SAID FOR YEARS, it becomes FUD with no factual basis? Huh?
>>>
>>> Linux advocates are a fickle bunch.
>>>
>>> They change their position like a leopard changes spots.
>>
>> Some do. Others don't.
>>
>>
> My position on this is, and has been, that software patents are stupid,
> and need to go. Whether it's MS holding them, or someone threatening MS
> with one, they're bad law, and a bad idea.
>
That was the position of the Founding Fathers of the US. They compromised
on what was supposed to be very limited time frames for copyrights and
patents. That system has been horribly corrupted. It would be interesting
to see what would have happened if the anti-patent/copyright faction had
won.
--
Rick
|
|
