a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Mark Borgerson on 6 Apr 2010 00:40 In article <19a5f6cf-56ea-4eca-acf9-72661f51eaf7 @g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com says... > On Apr 5, 4:14 pm, Don McKenzie <5...(a)2.5A> wrote: > > This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld. > > Tuesday, 06 April 2010 > > > > ======================== > > > > Thumbs down for software patents in NZ > > Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions > > > > Open source software champions have been influential in excluding > > software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. > > > > Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select > > Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be > > patentable and includes the sub-clause =3Fa computer program is not a > > patentable invention.=3F > > > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-pat.... > > > > Cheers Don... > > > > -- > > Don McKenzie > > > > Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap > > E-Mail Contact Page:http://www.dontronics.com/email > > Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam > > No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam > > > > These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html > > so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I > can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's > somehow not worthy of protection? An algorithm is not necessarily a program. The program should be protected by copright. > > a program is just a virtual machine > And it is just one way of utilizing an algorithm. Mark Borgerson
From: Mark Borgerson on 6 Apr 2010 00:41 In article <4bba60b3$0$1783$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid says... > WangoTango wrote: > > >> Open source software champions have been influential in excluding > >> software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. > > > Oh my god, this has to be a late April's Fools article. > > There can't be that much common sense available these days. > > I can do one better. Ordnance Survey, a mapping agency in the UK have > now (from 1st April) released some of their street mapping data for free > download. (16G all up from what I've been told). > > They also freed up the postcode locational database, that cross > references post codes with physical locations. Previously that data was > simply unavailable due to licensing costs making it completely useless > for everyone except the odd commercial outfit who could warrant the > cost. There was *HUGE* public debate about this, asking why something > so simple could possibly cost so much - ruling out any use for the > general public. > > For the benefit of those who don't already know, Ordnance Survey till > now have been absolute arseholes on pricing, who would charge for > someone's snot on the disk they send you, as an optional extra. Not > only that, from what I've read, they somehow own (?) any data product > you create from their maps. Wonderful, you have to pay for the > privilege of creating data for them. > > Coupled with the date, one could be forgiven it was a sad joke. > > Except it's for real. > > But don't worry, it's not all good news: Their most popular 1:25K and > 1:50K map series maps are still in commercial format. > Nautical charts and topographic maps have been available from US agencies without cost for many years now. IIRC, Canada still make nautical chart data available only to licensed commercial vendors. Mark Borgerson
From: D Yuniskis on 6 Apr 2010 01:15 Don McKenzie wrote: > > This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld. > Tuesday, 06 April 2010 > > ======================== > > Thumbs down for software patents in NZ > Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions > > Open source software champions have been influential in excluding > software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. > > Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select > Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be > patentable and includes the sub-clause �a computer program is not a > patentable invention.� > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-patents-in-nz Yay! Though, frankly, a more reasonable approach would have been to *greatly* reduce the period in which patent a patent on such "art" is granted -- and prevent the patents from being "renewed". Given how quickly the industry moves, it's hard to imagine *anything* being worthy of protection for more than a few (e.g., 3-4) years. I think if that were the case, folks would avoid the patent hassle entirely, rely on trade secret, as needed, and just plan on being "nimble" in the marketplace instead of trying to live off old (artificial) glories...
From: Peter Dickerson on 6 Apr 2010 02:31 "steve" <bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:19a5f6cf-56ea-4eca-acf9-72661f51eaf7(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Apr 5, 4:14 pm, Don McKenzie <5...(a)2.5A> wrote: > This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld. > Tuesday, 06 April 2010 > > ======================== > > Thumbs down for software patents in NZ > Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions > > Open source software champions have been influential in excluding > software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. > > Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select > Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be > patentable and includes the sub-clause �a computer program is not a > patentable invention.� > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-pat... > > Cheers Don... > > -- > Don McKenzie > > Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap > E-Mail Contact Page:http://www.dontronics.com/email > Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam > No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam > > These products will reduce in price by 5% every > month:http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's somehow not worthy of protection? a program is just a virtual machine -------------------------- so if I go in my basement (were I to have one) and work on a new book for 10 years why shouldn't I patent that. No, software is much more like a book than a machine. Algorithms are much more like mathematics. More vague algorithms such as user interfaces and heuristics are much more like a novel. That's what copyright is for. The purpose of patents, as I understand it, is to give the inventor protection to commercialise there idea while making the invention available for the public good in the long run. If you want to protect software in the same way then the code needs to be published in the patent application and be freely available for public use once the patent duration expires. Copyright, does require you to expose you code and the protection period is far longer. Peter
From: Paul Carpenter on 6 Apr 2010 04:36
In article <19a5f6cf-56ea-4eca-acf9- 72661f51eaf7(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, bungalow_steve(a)yahoo.com says... > On Apr 5, 4:14 pm, Don McKenzie <5...(a)2.5A> wrote: > > This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld. > > Tuesday, 06 April 2010 > > > > ======================== > > > > Thumbs down for software patents in NZ > > Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions > > > > Open source software champions have been influential in excluding > > software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill. > > > > Clause 15 of the draft Bill, as reported back from the Commerce Select > > Committee, lists a number of classes of invention which should not be > > patentable and includes the sub-clause ?a computer program is not a > > patentable invention.? > > > > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/thumbs-down-for-software-pat.... > > > > Cheers Don... > > > > -- > > Don McKenzie > > > > so if I go in my basement and work on a new mousetrap for 10 years I > can patent it, but if work on a new algorithm for 10 years it's > somehow not worthy of protection? > > a program is just a virtual machine There comes a problem with patenting software, consdiring the book analogy someone else cited. Patenting software is like patenting a book of a specific size, type and colour of paper, cover photo, and binding combination. The copyright for a book exists mainly on the content of the book (and ancilliaries like illustrations, photos, cover layout. Consider a novel circuit patent, and someone adds one resistor to improve it, they have improved upon the patent, not infringed it. How are you going to patent the software in binary form or at source level in what language for which host. One could agrue using a different compiler has improved upon the patent because using a different compiler or compiling switches has speeded the software up hence improved upon a previous patent. The algorithm used is best described without actual software as in 5 years everybody could be using it written in a different language for three new instruction sets of new cpus. Just the byte oreding of the storage could make it non-identical, let alone different instruction sets of the host that may improve it again. How are you going to patant software for any cpu, any language, any bus/register width, any memory size, any byte/word ordering. then prove the software is a copy. -- Paul Carpenter | paul(a)pcserviceselectronics.co.uk <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services <http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font <http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny <http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate |