i can concur with Michael Nelson's second message (dated 12/04/04).
in particular i am in agreement with his third point. i believe it is
immoral to choke the natural evolution of chess (and variants thereof) by
monopolising new aspects of it. i myself have ideas for chess variants and
chess rule modifications but would prefer it if other people were allowed
to modify and improve my ideas.
the falcon may indeed be original and the basis of the patent, but is it
morally fair that nobody else is allowed to attempt to improve falcon
chess or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece?
i would like to know how profitable falcon chess is as an enterprise. i
would also like to know why the designer bought the patent. is it so that
nobody else may attempt to improve falcon chess (or other chess variants
by employing the falcon piece)? is the name 'falcon' protected? for
example, may i invent another different piece and call it a falcon? or, am
i allowed to alter the name and/or appearance of the current falcon piece
found in falcon chess? are any monopolies moral?
if falcon chess is a profitable enterprise then it might be worth
considering how it could be made more popular if other people were allowed
to promote it. if it were made more popular, would it not then increase the
value of the falcon chess enterprise? having a monopoly on the falcon piece
and falcon chess in general does introduce a choking aspect with regards to
the popularity and future of the game. it is this then that leads me to
believe that chess (variant) patents are bought for personal financial
reasons only. and it is this that most people consider to be immoral
and/or abhorent.
i can concur with Michael Nelson's second message (dated 12/04/04). in particular i am in agreement with his third point. i believe it is immoral to choke the natural evolution of chess (and variants thereof) by monopolising new aspects of it. i myself have ideas for chess variants and chess rule modifications but would prefer it if other people were allowed to modify and improve my ideas.
the falcon may indeed be original and the basis of the patent, but is it morally fair that nobody else is allowed to attempt to improve falcon chess or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece?
i would like to know how profitable falcon chess is as an enterprise. i would also like to know why the designer bought the patent. is it so that nobody else may attempt to improve falcon chess (or other chess variants by employing the falcon piece)? is the name 'falcon' protected? for example, may i invent another different piece and call it a falcon? or, am i allowed to alter the name and/or appearance of the current falcon piece found in falcon chess? are any monopolies moral?
if falcon chess is a profitable enterprise then it might be worth considering how it could be made more popular if other people were allowed to promote it. if it were made more popular, would it not then increase the value of the falcon chess enterprise? having a monopoly on the falcon piece and falcon chess in general does introduce a choking aspect with regards to the popularity and future of the game. it is this then that leads me to believe that chess (variant) patents are bought for personal financial reasons only. and it is this that most people consider to be immoral and/or abhorent.