@tek What about their code of ethics do you dislike, and what do software patents have to do with it?

@tek Isnt that literally required from any publishing software association. It would be illegal not to respect software patterns and by extension illegal for an organization to publish something that violates a software patent.

It would seem they would be required to make that stipulation by law regardless of any personal opinions they may have.

@tek But thats not really the point. You can disagree with the usefullness of patents all you want, but its still a law and whether you disagree with it or not you are obligated to uphold it (and if you dont they will just take your property from you).

The ASM has the same obligation. Their code of ethics is very simply required by law. They have absolutely no choice but to make it part of their code of ethics. So whether you or them think patents are a good idea or not, really is not relevant to the discussion, its been decided for them and they are required by law to uphold it.

I can see you disagreeing with the notion of patents. but to decry a whole organization because they simply follow the law they are obligated to follow, that seems like an ethical leap to me.

@tek I am not saying they need to have a code of ethics, or that the phrasing needs to be in there.

What I am saying is they ARE required to reject any publications that violate a patent holder. Likewise they would be required to silence any voice that is part of the organization that actively promotes other people violate patents.

As such even if they didnt mention it in their code of ethics they would be required to **act** as though it were in their code of ethics by actively acting against anyone who violates patent law.

Since a code of ethics is little more than a list of rules the organization enforces upon any material published on their site they simply choose to explicitly state this particular rule rather than to say nothing and have to enforce it as an unwritten rule.

To me I'd rather be told about the rule straight forward in the code of ethics than have a company behave as if it were a rule but not mention it as a rule anyway.

Also legally speaking it is very possible by having a code of ethics and not mentioning it anyone who violated the rule and was denied publication could potentially cause problems for the ASM.

Again, your logic really doesnt connect with me even if i accept your notion of disagreeing with patents as a law.

@tek Sure but if your going to refuse to work with any organization that has as part of their rules that they respect pattents (written or otherwise) your going to have very few services, businesses, or publications you could ever work with. Its either implied or explicitly stated in the rules of virtually any business.

@tek Again, some companies just dont explicitly state it. It is always a rule. I dont think it makes a big difference that the ASM explicitly stated it over other agencies that enforce it but dont explicitly state it.

If anything I'd say its nice the ACM is explicit about it so you know about it rather than needing to be knowledgeable to know yourself and assume or ask.

@tek It was nice talking to you too, have a great day.

@Lwasserman indeed I wish i had more room for more options