Lawyers may destroy the software industry

[Peter L. Peres]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Drew Hamilton wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Mel Wilson wrote:
> >    I'm surprised that legal arguments aren't patented.  It
> > would make sense.
>
> Or, more accurately, it would make as much sense as patenting software
> processes.

Which they do help to patent nowadays. What do you think an algorythm is ?
Maybe they are afraid to sip from their own poison ? Hmm, that makes
sense.

> The only reason that we don't see legal arguments patented like
> everything else, is that lawyers *know* that it doesn't make any
> sense to patent legal arguments.  That's their job, that's their
> life.  That's what they work with.  Lawyers have no such in-depth
> knowledge of software.
>
> What we need is for more computer geeks to grow up to be lawyers.

No, we need one clever lawyer to patent legal argument (the action), and
then charge his fellows worldwide by the minute, everywhere. Then lawsuits
would become very swift and efficient. Then someone will patent lawmaking
and laws will become more sparse. Then ...

Peter
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml