ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Disclosure is unreadable"
m (→Disclosure happens without patents, and better: delink) |
(→External links: ==References== <references />) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* [http://techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0135002767.shtml Microsoft employee explains why disclosure is useless] | * [http://techdirt.com/articles/20081107/0135002767.shtml Microsoft employee explains why disclosure is useless] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
| + | <references /> | ||
{{page footer}} | {{page footer}} | ||
[[Category:Arguments]] | [[Category:Arguments]] | ||
Revision as of 03:18, 12 February 2010
(new page, work in progress)
- "There was an Australian government study of the patent system in the 1980's. It concluded that aside from international pressure, there was no reason to have a patent system -- it did no good for the public -- and recommended abolishing it if not for international pressure. One of the things they cited was that engineers don't try reading patents to learn anything, as it is too hard to understand them. They quoted one engineer saying "I can't recognise my own inventions in patentese".[1]
Contents
Disclosure happens without patents, and better
In a 2008 in re Bilski brief, this quote is pulled from the in re Alappat ruling:
- "[i]t is estimated that 85-90% of the world's technology is disclosed only in patent documents." (Newman, J., concurring)
Of course, using this quote when discussing software is disingenuous given the massive, complete, and freely reusable information disclosed by free software such as GNU/Linux, and given that many authorities have said of software patents that the disclosure is useless.
