a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Jon Kirwan on 19 Apr 2010 00:42 On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:52 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__ >> >> exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is >> >> already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet >> >> you provide your own contrary evidence. >> > >> >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can >> >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. >> >The choice to exercise them is not always made. >> >> By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you >> seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as >> much because they have patents, but that if software patents >> are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the >> copyright violations more than before? Is that your point? > >The comment you are referring to came in response to the >apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of >software patents. My arguments have been consistently that >copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than >software patents. > >I base that on significantly longer protection and court >precedents over damage awards that could be based on >actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of >content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally >change actual over all practice. Software patents give a >lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of >redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright >gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations >for a long period of time. > >Would the dropping of software patents make copyright >protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of >getting a software patent made a lot of patentable >software relatively unprotected because the authors >didn't know that copyright protection could also >have provided them with a lot of adequate protection >through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases So the upshot is that because patents exist, some folks go for that and in the process fail to consider copyright? I must be having a bad day. I'll re-read this tomorrow. Jon
From: terryc on 20 Apr 2010 01:11 On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:21:44 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote: > And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses, > impartial and in good faith. Now that would be interesting to actually see, one of them impartial expert witnesses, rather than just another mouthpiece for hire.
From: David Brown on 20 Apr 2010 04:49 On 19/04/2010 03:32, Walter Banks wrote: > > > Jon Kirwan wrote: > >>>> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__ >>>> exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is >>>> already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet >>>> you provide your own contrary evidence. >>> >>> Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can >>> happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. >>> The choice to exercise them is not always made. >> >> By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you >> seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as >> much because they have patents, but that if software patents >> are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the >> copyright violations more than before? Is that your point? > > The comment you are referring to came in response to the > apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of > software patents. My arguments have been consistently that > copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than > software patents. > > I base that on significantly longer protection and court > precedents over damage awards that could be based on > actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of > content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally > change actual over all practice. Software patents give a > lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of > redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright > gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations > for a long period of time. > I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is here. > Would the dropping of software patents make copyright > protection stronger? Remember, software patents are a peculiarity of the USA (there are a few patents issued by other countries that are arguably "software patents", but these are not common). You don't have to speculate about what would happen without software patents - you simply have to look to Europe. If the USA dropped software patents, it would become more common to bring copyright cases to court - in a country with companies addicted to suing each other, if software patents are removed then they will use copyrights. Since to some extent American courts make up the law as they go along ("precedence"), this may lead to some changes in copyright law, or its interpretation, in the USA. > I don't but the sheer threshold of > getting a software patent made a lot of patentable The "sheer threshold of getting a software patent" !?! Have you ever /looked/ at the sort of junk that gets patented in the USA? All you have to do is use long technical words that the patent "examiner" can't understand, drown the document in soporific legalise, pay your fee on time and you get your patent. There are certainly some people that take patent applications seriously and only apply for inventions that are truly innovative and useful. But patent offices are swamped with nonsense patents (in all countries, but the USA more than others, and in all fields, but software more than others). Most are granted to large companies that have employees specialising in making as wide and vague patents as they can. > software relatively unprotected because the authors > didn't know that copyright protection could also > have provided them with a lot of adequate protection > through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases > Are you trying to say that there are lots of people out there writing new, innovative and useful software, who understand about software patents (but don't have the time, money or expertise to get one), yet don't understand even the basics about copyright? Have these mythical developers never looked at any other software? Never seen a "Help About" box with a copyright notice? Never read a book? I can well believe they don't know the rights they have with copyrights, or even that copyright is automatic (many people think you have to register it in some way). But I simply don't believe that anyone capable of writing software that has a valid claim for a software patent (by USA standards) is incapable of googling for "copyright".
From: David Brown on 20 Apr 2010 14:55 Walter Banks wrote: > > David Brown wrote: > >> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - >> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' >> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, >> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers. > > I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they > have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and > protecting IP. > OK, we agree on that - thanks for clearing this up. I'm think we differ a little on the weightings for the reasons for disliking software patents - you say they are ineffective at encouraging innovation, while I believe they directly discourage far more innovation than they encourage. In other words, they are not just unnecessary, but a direct hindrance to progress.
From: Chris H on 20 Apr 2010 08:43
In message <l156t9.lio(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst <albert(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes >There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for >economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US >and China would be certain. The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |