Re:Why Kevin Mitnick Is Still Breaking into Computers
by bediger4000 on Thursday March 26, 2015 @10:51PM
(#9274507)
I don't think the question asked makes the asker anti-patent.
In your comment, you wrote: As engineers we have a responsibility to design systems in ways that minimize the effects of human error.
That's more than a little didactic and preachy. It looks to me like you're trying to tell everyone that they have a moral duty to design systems in particular ways. That's well and good, another design principle for all of us to observe. But you also write that you got a patent on an idea or method of how to actually implement that design principle. It makes it seem like you've got a profit motive for prescribing the design principle: you've got a patent on the way to implement that principle. We've got a moral obligation to implement that principle, hence we should pay you (or your assignee) for the idea.
The question isn't anti-patent, it just gets at the motive for prescribing such a design principle.
In your comment, you wrote: As engineers we have a responsibility to design systems in ways that minimize the effects of human error.
That's more than a little didactic and preachy. It looks to me like you're trying to tell everyone that they have a moral duty to design systems in particular ways. That's well and good, another design principle for all of us to observe. But you also write that you got a patent on an idea or method of how to actually implement that design principle. It makes it seem like you've got a profit motive for prescribing the design principle: you've got a patent on the way to implement that principle. We've got a moral obligation to implement that principle, hence we should pay you (or your assignee) for the idea.
The question isn't anti-patent, it just gets at the motive for prescribing such a design principle.