a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Didi on 20 Apr 2010 10:10 On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: > In message <l156t9....(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst > <alb...(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. Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK. It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war... If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor. They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves, fuel included. Dimiter
From: Chris H on 20 Apr 2010 10:37 In message <7199c47f-3c95-4aa1-96d6-87bc91909f7f(a)f17g2000vbd.googlegroup s.com>, Didi <dp(a)tgi-sci.com> writes >On Apr 20, 3:43�pm, Chris H <ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >> In message <l156t9....(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst >> <alb...(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. > >Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK. >It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war... >If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor. >They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves, >fuel included. The Chinese can sink the USD in matter of hours. Then the US can not buy fuel or food on the international markets. Actually the US could not by anything or do any business..... no matter how many tanks it has. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Walter Banks on 20 Apr 2010 10:46 Jon Kirwan wrote: > >Software patents give a > >lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of > >redefined claims for short period of time. > > I think I understand this. But I don't fully agree with the > thrust. Patents can last around two decades and in the > computer field that is "almost forever." In other words, > about the "same as" copyright protection. And copyright can > be "worked around." Patents cannot be nearly so easily. A few years ago I would have agreed with you on speed of the computer field. I don't see the speed now. We are still selling tools for processors whose instruction sets were developed in the mid to late 70's. One of my current projects started in 1998 and we have support contracts to 2016 that are very likely to be extended 15 or 17 years is is not a long time anymore. It now takes 5-8 years to launch new processors and about as long again to get them designed in. A major reference document that we use was written in 60's and revised in the 70's. It has a copyright and has outlived many patents. > copyright can be "worked around." Patents cannot > be nearly so easily I don't agree. Patent's are far more protective of a narrow range of claims that need to be predefined. The copyright control of derivative works makes the copyright holder able to control material in ways that were not even imagined when the copyright was issued. Had the LCD control patent been a copyright there would still be a lot of licence fees being paid. This patent was organized the way a copyright could have been. LCD material requires that the average voltage be across the material be zero. The patent author detailed essentially all the ways an LCD display could be driven or scanned and keep the average display voltage zero. Once usage goes beyond fair use a copyright can be powerful protection. In general fair use does not allow someone to profit from the use of a copyright they do not own. (I know there are exceptions to this) Regards, Walter.. -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com
From: Walter Banks on 20 Apr 2010 10:55 David Brown wrote: > > 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. The key to my comments are that patents require a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed. This not only means that the invention must be novel but the inventor must have specific vision on how the invention is going to be used. Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision. Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine and confused my earlier comments. Regards, Walter.. -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com
From: David Brown on 20 Apr 2010 11:17
On 20/04/2010 16:46, Walter Banks wrote: > > > Jon Kirwan wrote: > >>> Software patents give a >>> lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of >>> redefined claims for short period of time. >> >> I think I understand this. But I don't fully agree with the >> thrust. Patents can last around two decades and in the >> computer field that is "almost forever." In other words, >> about the "same as" copyright protection. And copyright can >> be "worked around." Patents cannot be nearly so easily. > > A few years ago I would have agreed with you on speed > of the computer field. I don't see the speed now. We are still > selling tools for processors whose instruction sets were > developed in the mid to late 70's. > > One of my current projects started in 1998 and we have > support contracts to 2016 that are very likely to be extended > > 15 or 17 years is is not a long time anymore. It now takes > 5-8 years to launch new processors and about as long again > to get them designed in. > > A major reference document that we use was written in 60's > and revised in the 70's. It has a copyright and has outlived many > patents. > You are referring here to a tiny niche market. In the huge majority of the software world, a couple of years is a long time. Support contracts lasting as long as 3 years are extra cost. If you are a large company and want long-term support from a small company with a great new product, you can't rely on that company existing in a few years time - you just buy the company. If patents, and software patents in particular, were only given for truly new, innovative and useful ideas, then I might agree with you somewhat - there have been relatively few good "inventions" in software (or processor design, since you mentioned that) in recent times. There's been plenty of progress, but little in the way of revolutionary ideas that justify a patent. >> copyright can be "worked around." Patents cannot >> be nearly so easily > > I don't agree. Patent's are far more protective of a narrow > range of claims that need to be predefined. The copyright > control of derivative works makes the copyright holder able > to control material in ways that were not even imagined > when the copyright was issued. > Patents are typically written as broadly as the author can make it. When Jon says you cannot easily work around them, what he means is you can do your own development totally independently of the patent - typically with no idea the patent exists - and still fall foul of it. And because of the way patents are granted, and the way the courts work in the USA, it really doesn't even matter if you wrote the software long before the person who got the patent. If the patent-holder wants to sue you, it's going to cost you a great deal of money - whether you are "innocent" or not, and whether the patent is valid or not. And that's just because you came up with an idea that someone else also had. Copyrights, on the other hand, are very much narrower - they cover an implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Thus you are perfectly at liberty to do a clean-room re-implementation of the same ideas. Thus you are not allowed to steal other people's work, but you /are/ allowed to do the work again yourself. > Had the LCD control patent been a copyright there would > still be a lot of licence fees being paid. This patent was > organized the way a copyright could have been. LCD material > requires that the average voltage be across the material be zero. > The patent author detailed essentially all the ways an LCD > display could be driven or scanned and keep the average > display voltage zero. > Your example doesn't make sense. You can't copyright an idea, or a method, or a way to control an LCD. You can copyright a datasheet or instruction manual for the LCD. Patents and copyrights apply to different things. Note that I don't think anyone here has argued against the idea of patents for this sort of thing. While many people (myself included) would like to see wide-ranging changes to the way patents are granted, the duration, and the way conflicts are resolved (in the USA in particular, but also more generally throughout the world), I don't think patents should be abandoned entirely. /Software/ patents should be abandoned in the USA, like the rest of the world. But I see nothing wrong with the inventor of the LCD (or its control mechanisms) having a patent for that, for a few years. > Once usage goes beyond fair use a copyright can be powerful > protection. In general fair use does not allow someone to > profit from the use of a copyright they do not own. (I know > there are exceptions to this) > No one is arguing that copyright can give powerful protection - and that one of the main aims is let people have use of the copyrighted material without getting economic gain through its abuse. 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. |