- From: Hans Schulze <hans.schulze@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 12:45:40 -0700
- To: www-patentpolicy-comment@w3.org
We can't afford to let the lawyers scrape profit from the planetary net. We already pay to access it, and ALL businesses can make ample income from selling legitimate products. Tying the public's hands by putting all of a particular service under the control of a single patentor's format will hinder the development of fair competition (sounds like someone called MS, without me having read all the details of who is lobbying for this) for decades, and stunt an industry who's product development cycle is heading down to 6..12 months. We need the flexibility of being able to create ANY idea that is better than the previous one. Patents are already a hinderence in the mass-production market, but a necessary evil to help pay off the research investment. But not when there is no real innovation, such as a data record format used to communicate some information. Data formats are the sillyest thing to receive a patent that I have ever heard of, this idea coming from lawyers looking to make themselves useful. Algorithms should be patentable, given a bit of common sense. If this was a thread to the patent office, I would ramble on some more. Look at the consumer benefit of Napster and others, unfortunately not legitimate businesses, but these ideas have forced a limit to the gouging by music publishing companies, who for decades never paid reasonable revenues to the artists, and have collected way more than the ROI that the original risk that they took, all the while hampering the financial growth of tens of millions of artists who were not signed up with those giants. I do not condone the legality of Napster, but evolution in that segment needed a corrective lurch, at the cost of getting the legal system involved and shutting down a number of companies. The creativity of mankind cannot be dispensed from an ATM at the cost of a transaction charge.
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2001 15:45:30 UTC