snacktime wrote:

> It's the combination of the original work and modifications that make up the
> total value proposition. A derivitive work may indeed add value, but part of
> the overall value is in the original software.
>

This is true, but it is assumed that that part had already been paid
for once, and that people buying the derivative work are paying for
those enhancements, not the original software.  Afterall, if those
enhancements weren't worth the money, individuals would buy the
original software.

The argument then becomes what if this third party sells the product
for cheaper than the original company or distributes it for free?

This is a very real issue, and my best response is that companies
should be in the position to make money off of service and innovation,
not the notion of 'intellectual property'.  If they are already
centered around such a business model, the loss of royalties will be
minimal compared to the gain of others innovation and contribution.  If
the business model is IP centric, then without a doubt, they will lose
out.  This is the risk / payoff scenario a company must evaluate before
choosing to make their software free.

> That's not really fair. Even if you believe that software patents are bad
> for people, as an intelligent person you have to realize that many do not
> agree. Personally I think that the goals of the FSF if realized would harm a
> lot more people then it would help, and I don't think you care less about
> people because you see it differently. I might think you are wrong and
> debate your logic and understanding of economics, but I wouldn't call you a
> bad person just because you see it differently.

You're right.  My insult was uncalled for and I apologize to the OP and
to others for having said it, though it was more of a joke than
anything.