a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: WangoTango on 15 Apr 2010 16:57 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.
From: Don McKenzie on 15 Apr 2010 18:21 Albert van der Horst wrote: > 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> Sorry, I should have explained in full detail. I'll try and do better in future. I promise. :-) NZ = New Zealand Other common abbreviations are: US = United States USA = United States of America 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
From: Jon Kirwan on 15 Apr 2010 18:56 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: ><snip> >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 Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of yours, do they? Does Europe permit software patents on the same scope as the US? If not, then wouldn't their experience already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping software patents?" I don't know, but it seems that there is information in the rest of the world to help shed light in North America. Jon
From: Walter Banks on 15 Apr 2010 19:34 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks > <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > > ><snip> > >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. > > > Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of > yours, do they? Does Europe permit software patents on the > same scope as the US? If not, then wouldn't their experience > already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping > software patents?" I don't know, but it seems that there is > information in the rest of the world to help shed light in > North America. A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the end of some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the public domain. Those that cheer the dropping of software patents may find that copyrights are far more protective of creative work. NZ may have seen software patents as having limited real value for the software creator. It took a while for the music industry to sort out creative protection. Time will tell if apple iPad stores can use the same model. Copyrights are inexpensive and easy to register and have actually become the defacto protection. It is also something that open source folks need to look at as well. There are some open source copyright holders with rights that many authors may not have believed they gave up. Regards, w.. -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Jon Kirwan on 15 Apr 2010 21:16
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks >> <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >> ><snip> >> >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. >> >> >> Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of >> yours, do they? Does Europe permit software patents on the >> same scope as the US? If not, then wouldn't their experience >> already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping >> software patents?" I don't know, but it seems that there is >> information in the rest of the world to help shed light in >> North America. > >A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the >end of some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the >public domain. Those that cheer the dropping of software >patents may find that copyrights are far more protective of >creative work. I think I took your point on this, already. I was asking about any specific knowledge or experience you might have (as I believe your knowledge here will be far broader than most) about what actual circumstances might tell us, today -- regarding the situation where software patents are generally not used (or allowed.) It seems to me that we could learn from object lessons found in real life, rather than speculating, and that you might have some examples to draw from that informed your stance above. If not, that's a fine answer. That would only mean I have nothing else to go on. Certainly, prior to much before 1980 in the US, software patents didn't exist and so their introduction must have also led to a lot of speculation, much wrong but some perhaps right, about what the court decisions then would mean. Today, we have a lot more information to apply and over a world wide system, so I'm thinking we aren't in the same situation of speculation that we were in 30 years ago. The rest below also doesn't address this, so I am not sure how to add to that. Best to leave it, for now. Jon >NZ may have seen software patents as having limited >real value for the software creator. It took a while for the >music industry to sort out creative protection. Time will >tell if apple iPad stores can use the same model. > >Copyrights are inexpensive and easy to register and have >actually become the defacto protection. > >It is also something that open source folks need to look at >as well. There are some open source copyright holders >with rights that many authors may not have believed they >gave up. > >Regards, > > >w.. |