Talk:Freedom of expression
"If something is patented, then you might not be able to publish an article about it."
This was deleted by an IP editor, on the grounds that patent details are always publicly available. That sounds like a good argument to me, so have we engaged in a bit of our own FUD or is there a way that a patent could restrict the freedom to publish? steelpillow 14:16, 28 June 2009 (EDT)
- Ah, here's something about the dangers:a FAQ posted by Tridge to LKML, to follow up when someone finds the time. steelpillow 04:11, 29 June 2009 (EDT)
Any opinions on giving greater emphasis to the first (and maybe the second) of the external links? Maybe have a quick summary section that features that link. I just don't want the information there to be missed by a visitor to this page who doesn't want to be bogged down to read a long essay or who skips the external links, especially if no summary is provided. ... One approach might be to quote the 3 summary points that start the Phil Salin 1991 essay. .. I would then also add (or link to a separate page) how the extra collaboration possible on the Internet today 2010 means a patent comes with that much greater of a liability .. I would also add that the essay was apparently a response to State Street which has very recently likely been killed off by Bilski, to some degree validating the points covered by Salin. [Note that Salin covers raw free speech protection (point 1) but also implies that progress is promoted by removing as many barriers as possible to sharing software (point 3) and that a law that imposes an impossible to meet requirement on people leads to disrespect of the law (specifically referring in point 2 on how we cannot know all software out there in order to avoid infringement and the patent office to do a good job).. and all of this in 1991 before the Internet magnified all of these issues and software patents and lawsuits became significant in number.] Jose X 08:52, 22 October 2010 (EDT)