This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@cygnus.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
At 09:26 PM 1/21/98 -0700, you wrote: > we're not talking about PC hardware! we're talking about standalone > products: > >I see the difference, but I don't think the difference is all that >significant. Technical trade secrecy is always >antisocial--discouraging it is one of the stated reasons for having a >patent system--and while the amount of harm it does varies from case >to case, it does not deserve sympathy. Richard, Please don't feel that I am picking on you. But what is antisocial about trade secrets? I have never heard that the patent system was justified because of antisocial tendancies. One of its purposes is to make inventions public so that the science can be advanced, but the point is that that advancement should not happen without the inventor being appropriately compensated. Having a patent allows an inventor to reap economic benifits (maybe) while not having to keep his invention secret. But not all inventions are patentable. He may have simply found the perfect combination of existing techniques by extensive trial and error. I guess I have a lot of difficulty with what I perceive as your thinking that an inventor is not entitled to the fruits of his labors. Can you explain your thoughts in more detail? A lot of the statements you make are not clear to me. Rick Collins Rick Collins Email: redsp@writeme.com re:DSP, A Signal Processing Solutions Company P.O. Box 1253 Warrenton, VA 20188-1253 540-349-9606 Web Page: http://www.angelfire.com/biz/redsp/