Re: Why are software patents wrong?

[threeseas]

Bruce Lewis wrote:
> threeseas <timrueAT@mindspringDOT.com> writes:
>
>
> > the more fundamental underlying reasons why software doesn't qualify
> > for patent status.
>
>
> This has all been fully explained before.  Why don't you take a look at
> GOTTSCHALK v. BENSON, 409 U.S. 63 (1972) and tell us what part you have
> questions about?
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=409&page=63

1972...... yeah right..

wasn't this like before the Y2K problem?.... oh, well yes it was!

Point being, there exist this problem along the lines of 
nearsightedness, shortsightdness...

this doesn't change the fact that there is a identifiable and appliable 
physics to abstraction creating and use.

the caselaw you pointed to doesn't acknowledge it, as it even today 
computer science hasn't.

There was a time when it was the church with control over the 
population, but they did not accept some perspectives and even now 
established facts, as I mentioned in another post, it wasn't until 1990 
that the catholic church exorerated (sp?) Galelio (sp?) for his science 
of the earth revolving around teh sun. The Romans .... the government, 
could have helped bring about the adoption of the hindu-arabic decimal 
system.... but they didn't.... how can nothing have value re: the zero 
place holder...

I didn't have the time to fully read the link in posting this but what I 
did read suggest the courts, unlike the catholic church, might very well 
be open to seriously considering and properly acting upon such a 
"physics of abstrasction"............as long as we can keep the money 
carrot out of the picture (directly or indirectly -- ie. lobbying and 
honest science don't mix...)