Username or EmailPassword
and set an maximum license fee for all patents. (At least do these things for software patents.)
BTW, copyright is different than patents. In a software patent, it's not the code being patented, it's the process that is implemented by the code. That process could be implemented by lots of different code (each of which is protected by copyright), but if all those different code implement the same process then they are all copying whoever invented/created the process in the first place, and that inventor/creator deserves some reward for the work he/she put in in creating/inventing said process.
Let's consider the notion that someone can spend hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D inventing a process, then implements the process in software; then someone else comes along and copies the same process spending minimal (or zero) resources in R&D, yet can get away with providing the original creators zero recompense because they implemented it with different code base. That is absurd and is a slap in the face of the original creator. It says, "Your inspiration has ZERO value, only your grunt work coding does." Sorry, I don't buy it. The fact is, inventing the process is the HARD part. Once you've created the process, the coding is just grunt work. Yet Thom and those in his school of thought would hold that the grunt work deserves protection (in the form of copyright) but the much more important R&D that invented the process deserves zero protection. It's backward thinking.
The "software is math" proposition is a philisophical outlook. I don't happen to agree with it (I don't agree that something is "math" just because it can be represented in binary form; nor do I necessarily agree that "math" is not patentable. I think such arguments, if used in the patent debate, must be proven or at least demonstrated, rather than merely asserted as if they are axioms. Edited 2012-07-06 03:39 UTC