Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 29th May 2009 22:32 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project If there is one technology in the Linux world that ruffles feathers whenever it's mentioned, it's Mono, the open source .Net clone. Since .Net comes out of Microsoft, and has some patents encircling it, it is said to be a legal nightmare. Supposedly, you can obtain a "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license from Microsoft regarding the patents surrounding Mono. iTWire decided to look at just how easy (or hard) it is to get such a license. Turns out it's kind of hard.
Permalink for comment 366178
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

> Software patents are a joke.

Of course they are! Writing software is very close to writing books, novels (I mean fiction)... Software Engineering is like Theory of Literature then. You can read a lot of books on Software Engineering, you can even add a lot of theory from yourself, but still you would be a poor programmer. The same story is with Theory of Literature - you can swim very good in the wide and deep seas of many different theories describing what and how should be written and what something mean or should mean or not... And still you would be unable to be considered a good writer, which is able to write successfull stories ;-)

So, if these two disciplines are so similar, we should think for a while if it's possible to use patents in the field of Theory of Literature? Could you imagine something like that:

"a method of building the tension in readers' mind by ... ..."


"a way to suspend the action of a novel at the end of a story to enable multiple interpretations ..." etc.

It's similar to the descriptions of - so called - software patents.

So, both things, the literature and software are written and are the products of our creative minds. These cannot be patented like a methods of producing material goods, like shoes, airplanes, ketchup, sweets, juices, medicines etc.

I hope you got my impression.

Edited 2009-05-30 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 4