(oops, trigger finger slipped...)
> And now we have patents on specific colors!
Before I comment on the bulk of Pradeep's thoughts, let me first point out that "colors" have not been <<patented>> (to my knowledge). There are particular instances of colors being <<trademarked>>. For example, the color pink as a trademark for fiberglass building insulation is owned by some company (the Pink Panther people). Also, a certain shade of brownish-green (which some friends call "baby-poop green" or something similar . . .) has been granted trademark status as a trademark for ironing board covers used in commercial laundries. Trademark law is much more limited in scope than is patent law -- nobody owns the color pink, all that is said is that if you want to be in the fiberglass insulation business, you have to avoid creating pink products. Yes, that is a monopolization, but most people think that very limited monopolization is a fair one, since otherwise any tom, dick or mary could come along and get a free ride on the goodwill coat-tails of the pre-existing vendor. (Actually, my favorite trademark is the sound made by a Harley exhaust pipe has been trademarked by Harley-Davidson as a mark for motorcycles. Honda has to tune their exhaust pipes to a different frequency -- he he he.) In my experience, people confuse trademarks, patents and copyrights all the time, and it's probably a reasonably confusing arena. Nonetheless, since we're knocking patents here (as I will below), let's at least knock them for problems they deserve.
To the substance of whether or not patents should be issued in the first place: There has long been a controversy over the social good caused by patenting -- the "it encourages innovation" camp has long battled the "it discourages growth" camp. I don't know that we'll ever resolve that controversy at its basest level. BUT, my problem is that patents are being issued today by our government that do not even meet the basic standards of patentability devised over the decades to try and strike the balance. Whether this is due to an incompetent patent office in the government, or whether this is because, for example, web stuff requires a "time out" from patenting for at least the length of time it takes to establish the basic building blocks of the technology, I don't yet know. But, I do believe that our current environment, if left unchecked, will eventually strangle the development of web commerce and communication. There are too many basic ideas out there getting patents that I believe are obvious advancements of current public domain technology, and which should not be allowed to fester as private property monopolies granted by the government. The government should get out of the business of choosing winners and losers in the net world. (If you can't make it on the basis of your own implementation, then your patents should not be keeping you from a well-deserved business failure.)
As for copyright, I do not agree that wiping out copyright is the way to get more money into the hands of the artist/writer/etc. The existence of copyright is not the root cause of the oppresive business deals that have contributed to artist poverty--if anything, copyright is the only reason the artists get anything at all. Work on something else in the system, but don't undo copyright if the artist is your preferred party.
