a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: terryc on 15 Apr 2010 21:27 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks wrote: > 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. If someone copyrights a piece of code which uses variable A,B & C and I copy that code, but change to variable X, Y & Z and re-order the unimportant steps, then how does copyright stop that?
From: Walter Banks on 15 Apr 2010 23:08 Jon Kirwan wrote: > 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.) Two examples, both I have mentioned. Music industry and book publications both covered by copyright. Photography copyrights have a large body of law related to cloning and copyright ownership. These are all cases where copyrights are used for IP protection. > 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 earliest software patents (late 60's early 70's) required that a hardware implementation be part of the patent. Patents especially software patents have one use that copyrights do not and that is to put an idea into the public domain in such a way and to prevent it from being owned and controlled by anyone else. I have done this twice specifically for that reason. In both cases went as far as a patent disclosure and never following through so the disclosure itself would be a matter of public record. (BYTE paper bytes and the physics behind touch sensitive switches) Both were done in the 70's and both would have long expired. In both cases that I know of software patents paying well they were pursued by companies that bought patents just before they would expire and then used very aggressive approaches to collect royalties (close to extortion). One of these was related to scanning of LCD displays and the other was an obscure barcode patent. The rules have changed now to require patent owners to have a competitive interest in the technology. Regards, w.. -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Walter Banks on 15 Apr 2010 23:20 terryc wrote: > On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks wrote: > > > 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. > > If someone copyrights a piece of code which uses variable A,B & C and I > copy that code, but change to variable X, Y & Z and re-order the > unimportant steps, then how does copyright stop that? In the same way that the plot line of a book is part of a copyright and composition of a photograph. The test is a lot more rigorous than a file compare. The legal precedents for copyrights are mostly in the arts. Talk to a lawyer about the intricacies of copyright sometime. Fascinating stuff. Early boot ROM's in PC's were re-compiled clones of the original IBM PC boot ROM's with functions re-ordered. Tracing execution flow from the reset vector in the ROM's identified the copyright. US customs had automated tools to check imports for copyright violations at the time. Regards, Walter.. -- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited http://www.bytecraft.com --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Jon Kirwan on 16 Apr 2010 01:22 On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:08:23 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> 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.) > >Two examples, both I have mentioned. Music industry and >book publications both covered by copyright. Photography >copyrights have a large body of law related to cloning and >copyright ownership. > >These are all cases where copyrights are used for IP >protection. I wasn't thinking so much about analogy to other business areas _within_ the North American continent, but to the same business areas outside of it. Which is why I asked though you had provided such examples. I'll stop asking, now. >> 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 earliest software patents (late 60's early 70's) required >that a hardware implementation be part of the patent. Yes. Thanks for that reminder. Jon >Patents especially software patents have one use that >copyrights do not and that is to put an idea into the public >domain in such a way and to prevent it from being owned >and controlled by anyone else. > >I have done this twice specifically for that reason. In >both cases went as far as a patent disclosure and >never following through so the disclosure itself would be >a matter of public record. (BYTE paper bytes and the >physics behind touch sensitive switches) Both were done >in the 70's and both would have long expired. > >In both cases that I know of software patents paying >well they were pursued by companies that bought patents >just before they would expire and then used very >aggressive approaches to collect royalties (close to extortion). >One of these was related to scanning of LCD displays >and the other was an obscure barcode patent. The rules >have changed now to require patent owners to have >a competitive interest in the technology. > >Regards, > > >w..
From: Jon Kirwan on 16 Apr 2010 01:41
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:22:46 -0700, I wrote: >I wasn't thinking so much about analogy to other business >areas _within_ the North American continent, but to the same >business areas outside of it. Which is why I asked though >you had provided such examples. > >I'll stop asking, now. I'm saying that since I was sincerely interested in what you might know about this, not about being put in the position of badgering. Beyond a point, that is what it becomes. But I should clarify what I said above, as accepting the end of a conversation but not being clear about why might be misread. You made a point that made me wonder, namely that eliminating software patents would make things stricter, writing "Dropping software patents may result in software protection with teeth." I don't know much about books, but I don't recall patents ever being significant there. My recollection is that copyright has dominated as far back as I can remember, in varying ways. I certainly do not know how to translate that experience. What would be useful to someone as ignorant about law as I am would be a demonstrative example of "protection with teeth" in a legal environment that exists elsewhere in the world where software patents do not play as significant a role as they may in the US which makes your point. What confuses me about your writing here, and it does appear to be internally inconsistent to me from my legally ignorant point of view, is that you also _seem_ to simultaneously assert that patents don't make anyone money and in the two cases you mention the situation has been changed, anyway, so that it wouldn't work anymore. Seems like you are arguing two different ways at once -- that patents in the US are significant enough to take the teeth out of software protection and simultaneously also so insignificant that no one makes any money from them. There is a vague loophole from my ignorant view, which is that you are saying _direct_ money but that indirectly there is still some substantial value to software patents -- perhaps only to help out large companies squash smaller ones? I don't know. That's just a guess, because I really don't know where you took this, at all. Seems conflicting to me. Besides, it seems you would prefer to refer to other industries which use copyright and don't use patent, when that really doesn't help me see how the injection of patent protection into the system actually weakens the protection, broadly speaking. I admit. I'm confused by all this. But I also have asked enough and must accept when further questions would have to be considered excessive. You've given your answers and your time and that's more than enough. I'll just keep your thoughts in mind and see if perhaps enlightenment comes later to me. It may happen. Jon |