A good thing no-one can patent the alphabet, the wheel, or other simplisitic structures. That is because there is a lot of previous art.
Your concern is valid, however since there is already some software that wasn't patented, patents will most likely lock open source out of newer technologies -- and open source developers will be able to do the same [given they can afford the patents].
So we'll be stuck with older technologies, and whatever we invent -- could be worse. (not to say it couldn't be better)
If the data structure/algorithm is sufficiently complex, and no-one would have thought of it in the first place, then it may be worthy of a patent [of decent amount of time, non-renewable]. (as mentionned in prev. slashdot posts on similar topics).
However, if the patents are for simple structures, or things like 'int i' [an exageration, but you get the point], then we're doomed...
I agree with that, and would add that they could just as easily sell it as an 'Internet Browsing' machine, or 'Word Processor', etc to appeal to the masses.
What about people taking pictures at a crime scene? In those instances where they know beforehand that the feature would be useful.
Anyone, for difficulty to modify the data, I'd write the data directly to a CD-R, put in a signature using a unique ID from the camera (private key) and an oversized hash.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, temporary is what they should be.
Permanent is what they shall be if certain entities with lots of money can influence certain law-making entities.
A good thing no-one can patent the alphabet, the wheel, or other simplisitic structures. That is because there is a lot of previous art. Your concern is valid, however since there is already some software that wasn't patented, patents will most likely lock open source out of newer technologies -- and open source developers will be able to do the same [given they can afford the patents]. So we'll be stuck with older technologies, and whatever we invent -- could be worse. (not to say it couldn't be better)
If the data structure/algorithm is sufficiently complex, and no-one would have thought of it in the first place, then it may be worthy of a patent [of decent amount of time, non-renewable]. (as mentionned in prev. slashdot posts on similar topics). However, if the patents are for simple structures, or things like 'int i' [an exageration, but you get the point], then we're doomed...
Educate people? Use money as a voting system?
All I'm saying is that where there's a will there's a way. It's just that for now DRM is the best solution that can be seen to the problem.
[Unfortunately, like everything it will be likely abused from both sides -- corporate && consumer]
I don't know much about copyright, but what if it could be transferred to a corporate entity that doesn't die off?
I agree with that, and would add that they could just as easily sell it as an 'Internet Browsing' machine, or 'Word Processor', etc to appeal to the masses.
What about people taking pictures at a crime scene? In those instances where they know beforehand that the feature would be useful. Anyone, for difficulty to modify the data, I'd write the data directly to a CD-R, put in a signature using a unique ID from the camera (private key) and an oversized hash.