a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: tim.... on 16 Apr 2010 13:54 "David Brown" <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message news:4bc84f50$0$1993$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se... > On 16/04/2010 12:18, Walter Banks wrote: >> >> >> Jon Kirwan wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>> >> >> Your questions caused be to think about the differences between >> software patents and copyrights. To use a clearer example. >> Remember I am not a lawyer but this is the way I understand >> it. >> >> Assume that while writing a math package you discover a >> completely new new way of doing a square root. You register >> the copyright for the math package and you patent the method >> you used to do the square root. >> > > Don't forget that you can only register such a patent in the USA. No > other country allows something like that. > >> You now have full control of the duplication and distribution >> of the math package and if anyone copies it in whole or in part >> you have various legal recourses including damages. >> >> The square root patent on the other hand could be used in many >> math packages and applications. You could then license individual >> companies to use it and by agreement receive compensation. >> >> Where this gets murky is what would have happened if you only >> copyrighted the math package. After 15 or 17 years you would >> still have the copyright and presumably be able to enforce the >> distribution in whole or in part. That would mean someone >> who only wanted to use the square root part would need to >> come to an agreement with you to be able to do so. >> > > People can license all or part of code under whatever terms they want - > patents don't have to be involved at all. Copyright is what gives you > protection and lets you enforce these licenses. You cannot copyright a "method" only the exact textual solution is copyrightable, for example: if it were possible to patent your "code" for addition then x = a+b and x = b+a would be covered by a single patent. but if you copyrighted it and you code was x=a+b then someone else can write x=b+a and would not be in breach of your copyright tim
From: David Brown on 16 Apr 2010 15:04 tim.... wrote: > "David Brown" <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message > news:4bc84f50$0$1993$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se... >> On 16/04/2010 12:18, Walter Banks wrote: >>> >>> Jon Kirwan wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>> Your questions caused be to think about the differences between >>> software patents and copyrights. To use a clearer example. >>> Remember I am not a lawyer but this is the way I understand >>> it. >>> >>> Assume that while writing a math package you discover a >>> completely new new way of doing a square root. You register >>> the copyright for the math package and you patent the method >>> you used to do the square root. >>> >> Don't forget that you can only register such a patent in the USA. No >> other country allows something like that. >> >>> You now have full control of the duplication and distribution >>> of the math package and if anyone copies it in whole or in part >>> you have various legal recourses including damages. >>> >>> The square root patent on the other hand could be used in many >>> math packages and applications. You could then license individual >>> companies to use it and by agreement receive compensation. >>> >>> Where this gets murky is what would have happened if you only >>> copyrighted the math package. After 15 or 17 years you would >>> still have the copyright and presumably be able to enforce the >>> distribution in whole or in part. That would mean someone >>> who only wanted to use the square root part would need to >>> come to an agreement with you to be able to do so. >>> >> People can license all or part of code under whatever terms they want - >> patents don't have to be involved at all. Copyright is what gives you >> protection and lets you enforce these licenses. > > You cannot copyright a "method" only the exact textual solution is > copyrightable, > > for example: if it were possible to patent your "code" for addition then > x = a+b and x = b+a would be covered by a single patent. > > but if you copyrighted it and you code was > x=a+b > > then someone else can write x=b+a and would not be in breach of your > copyright > That's not quite true - copyright does not just apply to exact copies. Think about it a little - if you take a book you like, and copy it but give all the characters new names, can you publish it as your own new novel? Of course not. In fact you can make very substantial changes and it would still be a copyright violation - the same applies to software. An independent and unseen re-implementation of the same idea is not a copyright violation, though it might have been a patent violation. There is an enormous amount of software released in source code form to individuals, companies, and the public at large. The great majority of it has some sort of license (i.e., it's not public domain), but no patent protection. Copyright is what provides the legal strength to enforce the license. It's proven strong enough to provide the protection people need - software patents simply are not necessary. If you want an example, just look at all the software written anywhere in the world except the USA.
From: Walter Banks on 16 Apr 2010 15:21 "tim...." wrote: > "David Brown" <david(a)westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message > news:4bc84f50$0$1993$8404b019(a)news.wineasy.se... > > People can license all or part of code under whatever terms they want - > > patents don't have to be involved at all. Copyright is what gives you > > protection and lets you enforce these licenses. > > You cannot copyright a "method" only the exact textual solution is > copyrightable, > > for example: if it were possible to patent your "code" for addition then > x = a+b and x = b+a would be covered by a single patent. > > but if you copyrighted it and you code was > x=a+b > > then someone else can write x=b+a and would not be in breach of your > copyright This is a common misconception I think that if you intended get around a copyright you will probably find that the copyright was violated. A common copyright violation in the early days of personal computing was to recompile the PC's Boot ROM's (IBM published the source) with the functions in a different order and the memory tests deleted. This was found to be in violation of the copyrights. You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot lines. You can violate the copyright of a photograph by using similar composition. There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and musical arrangements. The screen play for Avatar is on line. Completely re-writing the dialogue into gaelic and changing the location to Greenland using snowmobiles for transportation would probably be a copyright violation. Walter..
From: Hans-Bernhard Bröker on 16 Apr 2010 19:13 whygee wrote: > It's as if the governments sold bazookas to the population so people > can defend themselves : it does not stop criminality, colateral > damages increase, it makes the weapons manufacturers happy and the > government says "it has done something for the citizen's security". I actually think the most common application of patents these days is as our field's equivalent of an anti-personnel mine --- you bury it, wait, and hope someone will die tripping over it, so you can pick through the remains. Like mines, they're most typically used in large numbers, as mine-fields, in an attempt to make entire areas inhabitable. Big companies tend use them as a deterrent against smaller ones, often mentioned in a statement containing a suitably spun version of "You pissed us off, so now we'll sue your pants off". To those who followed the debate about software patents around here, I'm sure I'm not the only one to whom some of the arguments brought forth sounded scarily similar to cold-war rhethorics, especially all that "we need these things because they have them, and they say they'll bang us over the head with them" train of thought. Software patents have become the missile-heads in yet another arms race, this time run by patent super-powers holding each other at bay, while making the world miserable for all others. > An inventor invents, a manufacturer manufactures. And the original idea behind patents was that an inventor should get a realistic chance to _become_ a manufacturer in his own right, without being overtaken by existing players in the market who copied his product as soon as they hear about them. The original plan was to reward invention with a chance to earn a nifty sum of money. A patent is a warrant of government-backed protection of the inventor's (or his partners') investment into setting up a production, by means of a time-limited monopoly. The government requests payment for this privilege in the form of letting everyone benefit from the idea --- but only _after_ the original inventor has earned their fill. > It's a disguised lottery that benefits the patent offices > and patent lawyers, and the overflow is spent by the courtrooms. IMHO the end of the US patent system making sense came when their government turned the USPTO from a tax-financed branch of the executive to an institution officially tasked with generating a net positive contribution into the federal budget. Ever since, the USPTO has biased its procedures towards earning more fees above all else. After all, why put work into testing, and possibly rejecting a patent application (little or no fees), when instead you can blindly accept it first (fee!), then handle the rebuttal process (more fees!) and ultimately leave all the actual hard work to the courts?
From: whygee on 16 Apr 2010 21:29
Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: <big snip> > After all, why > put work into testing, and possibly rejecting a patent application > (little or no fees), when instead you can blindly accept it first > (fee!), then handle the rebuttal process (more fees!) and ultimately > leave all the actual hard work to the courts? I see nothing to disagree, excellent points again. Sadly, it will be hard to sustain an interesting discussion if we always agree ;-) yg -- http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org |