a computer program is not a patentable invention

[WangoTango]

In article <l0xpro.40a@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl
says...

In article <81uukiFepfU1@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie <5V@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.

 

[Don McKenzie]

Albert van der Horst wrote:

In article <81uukiFepfU1@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie <5V@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

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@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

 

[Walter Banks]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
walter@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@netfront.net ---

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
walter@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..

 

[terryc]

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?

 

[Walter Banks]

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@netfront.net ---

 

[Walter Banks]

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@netfront.net ---

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:08:23 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@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..

 

[Jon Kirwan]

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

 

[David Brown]

On 16/04/2010 00:56, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
walter@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

Europe does not permit software patents in anything like the way the US
does. There have been some patents awarded in European countries that
are arguably software patents, and there have been calls to allow
US-style software patents (from a few big companies), and campaigns to
make sure they remain blocked (by all other interested parties).

Over here, software is covered by copyright law, which (for all its
failings) is still the best solution for all parts.

Patents were introduced for the benefit of small inventors. Without
patents, the inventor could either build up production themselves -
profiting from the idea, but only making small quantities of the device
and thus limiting the public good. Or they could give the idea to a
large company for mass production to the public. But without patents,
there was nothing to stop anyone making use of the invention without
paying anything back to the inventor.

To get a patent, you had to invent something new, useful, implementable,
and non-obvious to other experts. There was a time when these criteria
were enforced.

It's obvious from this that software does not need patent protection any
more than books or music - once you have a single implementation of the
software, there is no need for mass production. Publishing and
distribution already has copyright regulation.

In the USA, patents these days are almost entirely registered by large
companies, not small inventors. The checks for validity are almost
worthless - you pay your money, and you get your patent. It is left for
later courts to decide whether or not the patent is valid. These
patents are then used as weapons of defence or aggression between the
big companies and against smaller rivals or upstarts. Since you have a
legal system that generally costs vast sums of money for suit defendants
(whether they are innocent or not, and whether the patent is valid or
not), patents are basically a legalised protection racket.

Software patents make this far worse, since companies can easily
register all sorts of broad patents, and typical software developers
have no practical way of knowing if the code they write infringes on
patents that they have never heard of, and are almost certainly invalid.
The developers in this case are in no way "stealing" from the patent's
owner, or benefiting from the patent owner's work (if indeed they did
any real work for the patent), since they wrote their code without
knowledge of the patents.

Big companies lose out because of the cost of their army of lawyers and
arsenals of patents. Small companies lose out because they either pay
their own army of legal experts, or they risk getting sued into oblivion
if they get too successful. The only winners are the lawyers, the
patent trolls, and the occasional patent holder who strikes it lucky
with a truly useful and economically successful patent.

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.

 

[Walter Banks]

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.

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.

That is why I made the comment about "protection with teeth"
it takes a long time for the material that is copyrighted to
be in the public domain. The damage awards in the music industry
are examples of just how significant copyright violations can be.

Software patents started to be issued at a point when the software
industry was very young and it wasn't clear if what was important
was process pieces which could be bought and sold like the
components of a library or the complete works like na spreadsheet.

As recently as the mid 80's software tools commonly licensed
libraries as a separate document from the translation tools. There
are still some library only companies out there.

w..




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[whygee]

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.

yg
--
http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org

 

[David Brown]

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...

mvh.,

David

 

[David Brown]

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.

That is why I made the comment about "protection with teeth"
it takes a long time for the material that is copyrighted to
be in the public domain. The damage awards in the music industry
are examples of just how significant copyright violations can be.

The damage awards in the music industry are examples of just how far the
US laws and/or lawyers are from reality. These cases, and the music
industry's attitude to and handling of file sharing, is about greed -
they don't want to change a very lucrative business and see lawsuits as
a way of scaring people and maybe squeezing a bit more out of music
lovers. Steadily more musicians dislike their tactics, and very few
consumers approve. They are trying to label a very large proportion of
the otherwise-ordinary citizenry as criminals, do nothing to stop /real/
issues such as commercial bootlegging, and are making it harder for
honest consumers to trust them. How anyone can thinkdamage awards of
hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing a dozen songs is
"reasonable", is beyond my comprehension.

Software patents started to be issued at a point when the software
industry was very young and it wasn't clear if what was important
was process pieces which could be bought and sold like the
components of a library or the complete works like na spreadsheet.

As recently as the mid 80's software tools commonly licensed
libraries as a separate document from the translation tools. There
are still some library only companies out there.

w..




--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[whygee]

David Brown wrote:

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...
I know how it feels ;-)

And i've seen through the years that patents don't make business sense anymore.
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".

And I know that, like shit, innovation happens,
if you need patent "protection" it's not innovative.
An inventor invents, a manufacturer manufactures.
The patent's idea of an inventor getting rich because
he sells his patents to a big corp is not false,
but it's so rare, maybe one per 100K patent.
If an inventor gains 1M$ for selling one patent,
for every 10K patents (each costing maybe 10K$) that are
registered, I see that the system's output is really biased
($1M-$10K < 10K*$10K)
It's a disguised lottery that benefits the patent offices
and patent lawyers, and the overflow is spent by the courtrooms.

I "protect" my ideas by publication : when I write articles,
I get paid immediately (instead of spending incredible amounts of cash
for a long and painful patent application), I get recognized
as the innovator (good publicity), it spreads the ideas
(that's the original intent of patents) and I don't annoy anyone
(the reader can skip my article).

David
yg

--
http://ygdes.com / http://yasep.org

 

[tim....]

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4bc84f50$0$1993$8404b019@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

 

[David Brown]

tim.... wrote:

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4bc84f50$0$1993$8404b019@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.

 

[Walter Banks]

"tim...." wrote:

"David Brown" <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4bc84f50$0$1993$8404b019@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..

 

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

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?