Re: [tlug] Nice reply by Torvalds

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Curt Sampson writes:

 > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
 > 
 > > You *can't* get rid of the FUD factor, with patent law as it currently
 > > exists.  And if you could, patents would be a shoo-in, and we'd never
 > > get rid of them.
 > 
 > I don't quite understand that. Why would patents be a 'sho-in' if there
 > were far more clarity about whether any particular thing one implemented
 > violated a patent or not (if that's what you're saying here)?

That's what I'm saying, and the reason it would be a shoo-in is
because nobody with economic power would have a reason to oppose
them.  You just pass the costs through to the consumer.  The politics
follow.

 > If I understand what you're saying here, I don't think I buy this. The
 > search costs are minimal; there are plenty of patent holders out there
 > who are happy to tell you if you're violating their patent.

By which time your short hairs are long enough to grab, twist, and
yank.  No thanks.  You want to know about the patents that your
*planned* product will infringe, and definitely *not* be surprised by
the claims that patents you didn't know about make on the revenues you
received last year.

 > And this of
 > course produces defendents who are quite happy to do a fair amount of
 > work to find prior art and so on.

Hey, if you don't think work is a cost, I've got a *lot* of 50
yen/hour work for you.

 > > Now that might be enough to get Congress to do something about it.
 > 
 > I quite disagree. If free software died, I very much doubt that anybody
 > with any political power would care, at least in the current social
 > climate.

Hell, *I* don't care about free software.  I care about open source. ;-)