www/philosophy danger-of-software-patents.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       10/03/24 03:37:39

Modified files:
        philosophy     : danger-of-software-patents.html 

Log message:
        Minor cleanups.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7

Patches:
Index: danger-of-software-patents.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- danger-of-software-patents.html     1 Dec 2009 20:32:33 -0000       1.6
+++ danger-of-software-patents.html     24 Mar 2010 03:37:37 -0000      1.7
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
 you conceived of it in one particular way&mdash;you've got a mental
 structure to apply to your design.  And because of that, it will block
 you from seeing other structures that somebody might use to understand
-the same program, because you're not coming to it &ldquo;fresh&rdquo;; you 
already
+the same program, because you're not coming to it fresh; you already
 designed it with one structure in mind.  Someone else who sees it for
 the first time might see a different structure, which involves
 different ideas, and it would be hard for you to see what those other
@@ -427,7 +427,7 @@
 committee wanted to develop a follow-on standard, and they gave
 up.  They said there were too many patents; there was no way to do it.</p>
 
-<p>Sometimes it's a feature that's patented, and the only to avoid that
+<p>Sometimes it's a feature that's patented, and the only way to avoid that
 patent is not to implement that feature.  For instance, the users of
 the word processor Xywrite once got a downgrade in the mail, which
 removed a feature.  The feature was that you could define a list of
@@ -490,11 +490,11 @@
 this result.</p>
 
 <p>You see, if somebody has made a machine that does something once, and
-somebody else designs a machine that will do the same thing, but <tt>N</tt>
+somebody else designs a machine that will do the same thing, but N
 times, for us that's a <tt>for</tt>-loop, but for the Patent Office that's an
-invention.  If there are machines that can do <tt>A</tt>, and there are
-machines that can do <tt>B</tt>, and somebody designs a machine that can do 
<tt>A</tt>
-or <tt>B</tt>, for us that's an <tt>if-then-else</tt> statement, but for the 
Patent
+invention.  If there are machines that can do A, and there are
+machines that can do B, and somebody designs a machine that can do A
+or B, for us that's an <tt>if-then-else</tt> statement, but for the Patent
 Office that's an invention.  So they have very low standards, and they
 follow those standards; and the result is patents that look absurd and
 trivial to us.  Whether they're legally valid I can't say.  But every
@@ -575,8 +575,9 @@
 and because his idea is so good his company will inevitably succeed,
 except for one thing: the big companies will compete with him and take
 all his market the away.  And because of this his business will almost
-certainly fail and then he will starve.  Well, let's look at all the
-unlikely assumptions here.</p>
+certainly fail and then he will starve.</p>
+
+<p>Well, let's look at all the unlikely assumptions here.</p>
 
 <p>First of all, that he comes up with this idea working by
 himself.  That's not very likely.  In a high-tech field, most progress
@@ -902,9 +903,10 @@
 imagine that since software developers are not endangered by the
 copyrights on their work, that they won't be endangered by the patents
 on their work either.  They imagine that, since when you write a
-program you have the copyright, [that] if you write a program so you have
-the patents also.  This is false, so how do we give them a clue what
-patents would really do?  What they really do in countries like the US?</p>
+program you have the copyright, [therefore likewise] if you write a
+program you have the patents also.  This is false &mdash; so how do we give
+them a clue what patents would really do?  What they really do in
+countries like the US?</p>
 
 <p>I find it's useful to make an analogy between software and
 symphonies.  Here's why it's a good analogy.</p>
@@ -1382,7 +1384,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/12/01 20:32:33 $
+$Date: 2010/03/24 03:37:37 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>