a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Walter Banks on 19 Apr 2010 16:45 Albert van der Horst wrote: > In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us(a)4ax.com>, > Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: > > <SNIP> > > >But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble > >parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in > >nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics > >and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the > >judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases. > > And of course they *should* be based on domain expert > witnesses, impartial and in good faith. I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally less expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing houses do win copyright cases .
From: Albert van der Horst on 19 Apr 2010 17:34 In article <4bc84ce3$0$1996$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se>, David Brown <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote: >On 16/04/2010 12:47, whygee wrote: >> David Brown wrote: >> <snip> >>> There are occasional areas in which patents /do/ make sense - drug >>> research is an oft-quoted example since there the big companies pay a >>> great deal of money to develop the drugs covered by the patents. But >>> in most cases, innovation, economic growth, consumers and companies >>> would be far better served by scraping patents entirely. A good start >>> would be a gradual reduction in the time for patents down towards a >>> couple of years (with exceptions such as ten years for drug patents). >>> >>> The patent situation in Europe is not nearly as bad, but there is >>> progression towards the American mess. >> >> I agree 100% with your whole analysis. >> > >It's not often that happens! Usually I'm considered a bit extreme when >I write that sort of rant... No, it is spot on. Actually I stored the article, in order to discuss it with friends. Thanks. > >mvh., > >David > Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert(a)spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
From: Albert van der Horst on 19 Apr 2010 17:39 In article <MPG.263147bc14bcf30e98b056(a)news.east.earthlink.net>, WangoTango <Asgard24(a)mindspring.com> wrote: >In article <l0xpro.40a(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, albert(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl >says... >> In article <81uukiFepfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie <5V(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. >> >> It is pretty .......... to post news about a bill on an international >> forum without even mentionning the country it is in. >> >> <SNIP> > >Did I miss something here, or did you? > >I mean "Thumbs down for software patents in NZ" is pretty obvious to me. > Sorry, I missed it because NZ didn't ring a bell, and I overlooked. Now I understand it is New Zealand. Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert(a)spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
From: Jon Kirwan on 19 Apr 2010 22:47 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'm not sure I follow the semantic intent of your words here. Each word makes sense by itself. But not together. So I suppose this is why I didn't make much of this paragraph, yesterday. >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. Since I didn't get the first paragraph, this "based on" part doesn't add much for me. >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. In other words, I don't place nearly as much emphasis on the difference of duration as you seem to make of it. >Copyright >gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations >for a long period of time. Since folks without very deep pockets (a term I read you using elsewhere, today) don't really have access to patent protection (I've had the luxury to work with patent attorneys on two uncomfortable stretches in my life and in both cases the costs were about US$60k/loose-man-month), copyright provides _stronger_ protection, since it exists at all for them. As you mentioned elsewhere, individuals and small companies actually win such cases. For those with deep pockets, of course, I will agree that copyright does provide weaker protection. But I think I read you saying that removing patent protection would cause more teeth in copyright protection. I'm still not following that thread of thought and the above doesn't help me. Yet. >Would the dropping of software patents make copyright >protection stronger? I think that is the question you already answered, expressing an opinion that it would. >I don't And here is a broken fragment that I'm not sure about. Did you mean to retract the earlier point [by adding 'think so' to the above?] Or? >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 And this is where I am still hung up. It feels like you are suggesting what I earlier thought you were and which doesn't make any sense to me. Let me take this slowly. (1) Copyright exists on works, today, even if you don't register them officially. (I think.) One only needs a few words, at most, with software anyway. (2) As you mention elsewhere, only deep pockets have access to patent protection. Such folks certainly have ALL the necessary advice they need with copyright. (3) Parsing your words above, I gather that you are talking about a group of people/companies that had "patentable software" that was "relatively unprotected" because the authors were ignorant about copyright? Isn't that an argument that they _use_ copyright? (4) You mention a "sheer threshold" regarding patents and I take your meaning to be that this "patentable software" couldn't reach that threshold. Yes? Because they don't have enough money? If so, the loss of software patents won't affect them, anyway. I'm still not following the argument about why you think that the loss of software patents would add _more_ teeth to software protection in the US than it already enjoys. Jon
From: Jon Kirwan on 19 Apr 2010 22:49
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:45:24 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >Albert van der Horst wrote: > >> In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us(a)4ax.com>, >> Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: >> >> <SNIP> >> >> >But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble >> >parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in >> >nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics >> >and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the >> >judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases. >> >> And of course they *should* be based on domain expert >> witnesses, impartial and in good faith. > >I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally less >expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases >that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a >legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing >houses do win copyright cases . I also agree, having worked with patent attorneys charging upwards of US$60k/loose-man-month. So this suggests dividing the entire patent and copyright issue into at least two separate categories: as it applies to "deep pockets" and as it applies to "shallow pockets." Patents are largely off the table for shallow pockets, so all there is is copyright. Jon |