Quote of the Day
May. 10th, 2007 09:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsQuote of the day: "It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter."
This is exactly why geeks don't "get" patent law. They understand that it exists and they can play it as well as anyone, but the underlying rules of patenting something don't make sense.
For example, the idea of patenting VOIP (Voice Over IP) confuses geeks because it's just packetizing something over TCP/IP: the hard part was finding the right abstraction for TCP/IP, VOIP is just a specific application of that great abstraction, and is technically "easy" compared to the thought processes that went into creating TCP/IP in the first place. Why anyone should get a patent for applying a parameter to a working procedure puzzles the hell out of us. The only "interesting" aspect to VOIP is that there's finally enough end-to-end bandwidth to make it viable.
This is exactly why geeks don't "get" patent law. They understand that it exists and they can play it as well as anyone, but the underlying rules of patenting something don't make sense.
For example, the idea of patenting VOIP (Voice Over IP) confuses geeks because it's just packetizing something over TCP/IP: the hard part was finding the right abstraction for TCP/IP, VOIP is just a specific application of that great abstraction, and is technically "easy" compared to the thought processes that went into creating TCP/IP in the first place. Why anyone should get a patent for applying a parameter to a working procedure puzzles the hell out of us. The only "interesting" aspect to VOIP is that there's finally enough end-to-end bandwidth to make it viable.
