to autodownload or not to autodownload

[Les Mikesell]

Simo Sorce wrote:
>
>> Did I say already that USA has stupid law, which stops you from doing 
>> useful things?
>>
>> Because of one country's law we cannot use codecs etc.
>>
>> I hope EU will not do such law.
> 
> FYI, the European Patent Office has awarded more than 30k (maybe we are
> more on the 40k at this point as this datum is old) Software Patents.
> |The legal status of such patents is uncertain but need to be ultimately
> still fought patent by patent in court ...

I wish someone would pursue the argument that if you have a licensed 
copy of the patented software technology in question you should be 
allowed to use any other version of that same technology on the same 
device.  The theory that software should be covered by patents at all 
relies on the argument that it models a device or process (otherwise it 
is just math...).  If you buy a patented device you are allowed to 
modify it yourself and continue using its patented features.  So, my 
theory is that you should be able to take patented bits that you have 
(as perhaps you might have gotten with the device in the form of drivers 
  for a different OS), and rearrange them into a different pattern of 
bits that perform the same patented operation in a way that works better 
for you.   If you buy into the 'software as a model of a device' concept 
as the basis of patented software at all, this seems to be the logical 
equivalent of modifying your own licensed device.

Having to have a license to use some unique process is arguable 
reasonable (though there are good arguments against..). Having to have a 
different license for every version of every program under every OS that 
does that same process on the same device is insane.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com