a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Jasen Betts on 8 Apr 2010 03:40 On 2010-04-06, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: > 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. Anything that becomes an accepted standard like LH-compression, VFAT/FAT-32, MPEG Layer 3 or H.264, can be a nice little earner for the patent holder longer than that. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Adam Anderson on 9 Apr 2010 06:20 > 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? > You could patent it but unfortunately you use stairs to access the basement and as I patented "stair algorithms" many eons ago and all works derived therefrom you owe me big time, of course I waited until you'd made a commercial venture out of your mouse trap before I informed you off this.
From: Albert van der Horst on 15 Apr 2010 16:19 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> > >Cheers Don... -- -- 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: Walter Banks on 15 Apr 2010 16:21 Paul Carpenter wrote: > 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. > To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software. I know about quite a few software patents but I know of very few that generated enough revenue to pay for the costs of protecting and enforcing the patent. I only know of two that actually made real money. Copyrights are a different matter. There are lots of precedents and the courts know how to handles cases of rewritten to circumvent as well as assign monetary awards. Depending on country the copyright protection can last a long time to a very long time. There are several current very interesting open cases where copyrights and not patents may affect software. The most interesting one that I currently know about is a standard 40+ year old reference book of polynomial constants. Dropping software patents may result in software protection with teeth. Regards, Walter Banks -- Byte Craft Limited.
From: Walter Banks on 15 Apr 2010 16:40
Walter Banks wrote: > To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright > sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software. > To add one more comment. Much of the open source software is primarily protected with copyrights. Regards, Walter.. -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com |