[grannyg00se]

Why shouldn't they be patentable. If your company spends money and time comig up with a novel way to sort or search or compress information, why should you not be afforded the same protections as a company that came up with a novel way to store energy, or convert energy?

[slowpoke]

The "time and money" argument (financial incentive to innovate) is as old as it is irrelevant. Frankly, I don't care if you can't make money off the monopoly rents of an abstract concept (and I'm offended that you think I should). What I care about is you thinking you are entitled to halt progress for your own selfish goals.

Besides, it's fallacious to imply that people need "incentives" to innovate. I'd wager there are much more people who are hindered by the patent system than there are people who would stop innovating just because there's no more monopoly to be had by being the first to apply for some legalese nonsense.

It's utterly absurd to imply any sort of ownership or rights to an abstract concept. The very notion of it should be grounds for attesting insanity. Instead, we should focus on free flow and exchange of ideas, tight cooperation and incremental development off each others' discoveries.

So no, they shouldn't be patentable. Nothing should be.

[grannyg00se]

So you disapprove of any type of ownership over an idea. I understand that on a certain level. I suppose first to market would be the only commercial advantage to an invention then. That's not so bad but on a ten year expense to invent you arent getting much return if your idea can be replicated in a one month copycat product. Then again....it seems you are also not fond of personal gain or reward for one's efforts. That I can't really relate to. I don't think that everything I invent should be for the progress of all mankind.