Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9522 misc.int-property:606 comp.unix.bsd:6743
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Message-ID: <1992Oct18.085201.22747@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
References: <1992Oct13.055638.23596@netcom.com> <id.S_2U.Z2G@ferranti.com> <1992Oct15.144359.7019@rwwa.COM> <1992Oct17.015308.29380@pegasus.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 92 08:52:01 GMT
Lines: 57
In article <1992Oct17.015308.29380@pegasus.com>, richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct15.144359.7019@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes:
|> > [...]
|> >Until we have such an operative definition, I feel safe in saying that
|> >any example I would offer up would be greeted by a loud braying from the
|> >anti-patent faction claiming it was *obviously* not of a benefit to
|> >society.
|>
|> Without taking either side, let me ask:
|>
|> Can we assume that you are not willing to entertain the possibility
|> that patents may ultimately not be beneficial to society?
Robert's gripe about definition is a valid one. The lack of an operative
definition which includes the *possibility* that a patent can be beneficial
for society robs him of a ruler to use in judging.
If the ruler is infinitely long, then all patents are by definition lacking;
Robert is then fighting the St. Thomas Aquinas logical tautology, since by
the definition of "beneficial" it excludes patents as a class.
Robert's task appears to be:
For some set of objects 'A', there exists a nonintersecting set
of objects 'B'. Find an example of an object from set 'B' that is
also in set 'A'.
This is, of course, impossible. Robert's opponent is defining set 'A' as
"beneficial to society" and set 'B' as "patents".
All Robert is asking is that set 'A' be defined as "beneficial to society",
set 'B' as "not beneficial to society". He then wants the boundries of
set 'A' and set 'B' defined in terms of attributes other than whether or
not an object is a member of set 'C' (patents). This gives him a task that
is possible to complete, that of determining if sets 'A' and 'C' intersect
anywhere (ie: are there any patents which are "beneficial to society" given
the definition of the term).
I don't think Robert is arguing the fact that sets 'B' and 'C' intersect
(ie: that there exist patents which are "not beneficial to society").
I think it's up to Robert's opponents to quit begging the question (a logical
fallacy) to try to "prove" their view, and give Robert a fair shot at finding
a patent that meets a reasonable definition of "beneficial to society".
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------