a computer program is not a patentable invention

[whygee]

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

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 15:21:01 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

"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.

Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I
guess it is good it worked out that way.

You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the
same plot lines.

The same plot lines are reused over and over again. It's
been said that there has been nothing new under the sun for
many centuries, now. Probably true.

So far as I'm aware, only a particular expression of an idea
can be protected. Not the idea itself. Case law examples
I've see consistently hold that basic plot, settings and
stereotyped characters are not protected. Various story
devices are not and cannot be protected by copyright as they
are in a public commons of literary techniques.

Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most
other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
this case.

Software is a different medium, though. The plot devices
used in novels, such as "the butler did it" or a "sympathetic
mobster", etc., that aren't protected are quite general and
probably not protected at all with books, even if the story
had the butler do it _after_ meeting the sympathetic mobster
just like another story did. Yet, in software, perhaps the
use of a standard deviation algorithm right after the use of
a sort routine _might_ be protected? Or not? I don't know.
But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in
nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.

You can violate the copyright of a
photograph by using similar composition.

Example, please. This sounds almost crazy to me and I'd like
to see just how "similar" you mean to suggest here.

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.

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

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.

Hmm. Considering Amistad and Echo of Lions, I wonder. I'm
not sure I fully take your assertion, just yet.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:18:39 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> 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.

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.

I remember the period and some of the debates that raged at
the time and, vaguely, the reasons why some software vendors
wanted control. At least, what hit the general newspapers at
the time. What I saw in the papers was that end users sold
their software to someone else when they didn't want the
software anymore, or rental companies would buy the software
and rent it out, and the vendors wanted to make both
situations impossible, somehow. In fact, it was especially
in the case of rentals that there was a LOT of argument going
on at the time.

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.

None of this yet addresses itself to situations where the
lack of software patents has led to "protection with teeth"
in the specific case of software.

And you cannot seem to avoid hauling in the 'music industry'
when struggling to press your hypothesis. I don't mean that
negatively, but I am simply unable to port that into this
sphere of seeing this in terms of software. That may be my
own lack of imagination. But there it is. There are too
many differences in medium, market and market history, and
I'm sure this lack of similarity also applies to past case
history, contract law, and torts, and the preparation of
courts and judges to make well-informed findings, as well.

In any case, I just can't get see your assertion regarding
software protection getting stronger by removing software
patents. Copyright already exists in the US. It is also
enforced, as well. You, yourself, gave an example of this in
another post. Patents are, as another poster mentioned, a
veritable mine field (and besides that, I already have taken
the opinion that patents no longer have much value to anyone
other than large companies, anyway, these days.)

What would help is a showing from a developed country (in the
EU?) where a similar outcome followed as you say it would,
with details in evidence, as you assert would occur here in
the US. Namely, where the lack of patents there has led to
_stronger_ protections with more teeth in them than here in
the US, as a total picture.

To be frank, I think the combination of patents AND copyright
in the US has more teeth than copyright only and I cannot see
how the removal of software patents would put MORE teeth into
a situation. Copyright is one method for some domain,
patents are another method of another domain (possibly
overlapping in areas) and the two, combined, is more than
either alone. Even after the courts have a hand in it.

Perhaps I'm not communicating well and am just blind enough
that you cannot seem to reach me, either. It's a chasm I can
clearly notice, but cannot clearly see how to bridge. I know
you were trying to make a clear point that others would
understand well enough. Maybe others got it and I am just
not smart enough to do so. I wish I were better able to
follow your point.

Jon

 

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

Walter Banks wrote:

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.

Actually, there's a strong on-going campaign by movie studios and music
publishers, particularly in the USA, to change that "long time" into
"forever". And if they ever get their wish, that'll be an outright
disaster.

 

[Hans-Bernhard Bröker]

Walter Banks wrote:

You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the
same plot lines.

If that were actually true, pulp fiction wouldn't exist.

 

[David Brown]

Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:

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.

Actually, there's a strong on-going campaign by movie studios and music
publishers, particularly in the USA, to change that "long time" into
"forever". And if they ever get their wish, that'll be an outright
disaster.

Copyright in the USA (with other countries following on obediently) gets
extended every time Mickey Mouse is nearing the public domain.
Copyright lengths (and patent lengths) are already a disaster - it's
just a question of how much worse they can get. I don't really object
to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I
can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these
rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead.

 

[Baron]

David Brown Inscribed thus:

Hans-Bernhard BrĂśker wrote:
Walter Banks wrote:

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.

Actually, there's a strong on-going campaign by movie studios and
music publishers, particularly in the USA, to change that "long time"
into
"forever". And if they ever get their wish, that'll be an outright
disaster.

Copyright in the USA (with other countries following on obediently)
gets extended every time Mickey Mouse is nearing the public domain.
Copyright lengths (and patent lengths) are already a disaster - it's
just a question of how much worse they can get. I don't really object
to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I
can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these
rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead.

The simple answer would be that the copyright ceases on the death of the
originator. That would certainly put a dent into Disney and Elvis...

--
Best Regards:
Baron.

 

[Walter Banks]

Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:

You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the
same plot lines.

If that were actually true, pulp fiction wouldn't exist.

This is how the business plan for example romance novels
works. The publisher owns the copyright for a particular
story formula and hires authors to write novels using the
formula. Copyrights keep others from duplicating the
story lines.

w..




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

 

[Walter Banks]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

You can violate the copyright of a
photograph by using similar composition.

Example, please. This sounds almost crazy to me and I'd like
to see just how "similar" you mean to suggest here.

One that I am personally familiar with is the owner of a
software games company had a very leather jacket that
made him look like Indiana Jones and was successfully
sued for having his own image on his product with a generic
background of a central American jungle scene.

Search for details on some of the Getty Museum
copyright suites. Not all of them are exact images.

Walter..


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

 

[Walter Banks]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I
guess it is good it worked out that way.

Why should education and personal use be exempted, or
for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?

Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most
other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
this case.

A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.

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.

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

w..



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

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:37:14 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

You can violate the copyright of a
photograph by using similar composition.

Example, please. This sounds almost crazy to me and I'd like
to see just how "similar" you mean to suggest here.

One that I am personally familiar with is the owner of a
software games company had a very leather jacket that
made him look like Indiana Jones and was successfully
sued for having his own image on his product with a generic
background of a central American jungle scene.

Search for details on some of the Getty Museum
copyright suites. Not all of them are exact images.

Can't find anything much here. I've tried the following:

+"Getty Museum" copyright suit
Getty Museum copyright suit
+"Getty Museum" "copyright suit" indiana jones

and so on.

I found this, but upon reading further saw it wasn't anything
close:

http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Greek-bronze-will-stay-in-the-Getty-Villa%20/20504

I did try. Maybe your familiarity can get you closer to
something usable? Best of all would be a court document with
a legal decision expressed, of course.

Jon

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:46:12 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I
guess it is good it worked out that way.

Why should education and personal use be exempted, or
for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?

I believe educational research purposes already are exempted,
aren't they? Under "fair use," limited copying without the
permission of the owner is allowed for some kinds of teaching
and research, if I recall. And there are exceptions also for
the (entire?) reproduction by libraries and archives, memory
serving.

Regarding personal use, I didn't mean to suggest borrowing a
library copy, copying it for personal use, then returning the
original to a library. Though I sometimes wonder. I was
thinking more about making a second copy to hold elsewhere
against the risk of fire or water damage, for example. I
certainly would also consider just buying another copy. But
I think that may be allowed. Also, I believe there is a
commercial value consideration in law in the US, and the
courts look at the market impact of the action taken as to
whether or not it is 'fair use.'

Anyway, that is what I was thinking about when I wrote less,
before.

Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most
other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
this case.

A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.

I was addressing myself to your assertion about violating
"the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot lines."
A single example is enough to muddy up that water.

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.

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you
seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
much because they have patents, but that if software patents
are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
copyright violations more than before? Is that your point?

Jon

 

[Didi]

On Apr 18, 5:35 pm, David Brown
<david.br...@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

...
.... I don't really object
to people having rights over their creations and who can copy them - I
can't see how there is any moral or ethical justification for these
rights being valid 70 years after the author/creator is dead.

David, this is spot on.

Dimiter

 

[Walter Banks]

Jon Kirwan wrote:

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you
seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
much because they have patents, but that if software patents
are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
copyright violations more than before? Is that your point?

The comment you are referring to came in response to the
apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
software patents.

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual over all practice. Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.

Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of
getting a software patent made a lot of patentable
software relatively unprotected because the authors
didn't know that copyright protection could also
have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

w..




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

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:25:27 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

Hans-Bernhard BrĂśker wrote:

Walter Banks wrote:

You can violate the copyright of a novel just by using the same plot
lines.

If that were actually true, pulp fiction wouldn't exist.

This is how the business plan for example romance novels works. The
publisher owns the copyright for a particular story formula and hires
authors to write novels using the formula. Copyrights keep others from
duplicating the story lines.

So which colour Mills & Boon do you write?

 

[terryc]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:46:12 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it is for
educational research purposes or personal use. So I guess it is good
it worked out that way.

Why should education and personal use be exempted, or for that matter
why should library of congress be exempted?

They are not cart blanche (sp), but under fair use, e.g. parts could be
reproduced to illustrate educational points, for analysis, for crit?que,
etc.

>

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:52 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

By whom? The owners? If that's all this is about, then you
seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
much because they have patents, but that if software patents
are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
copyright violations more than before? Is that your point?

The comment you are referring to came in response to the
apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
software patents.

I base that on significantly longer protection and court
precedents over damage awards that could be based on
actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
change actual over all practice. Software patents give a
lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
for a long period of time.

Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
protection stronger? I don't but the sheer threshold of
getting a software patent made a lot of patentable
software relatively unprotected because the authors
didn't know that copyright protection could also
have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

So the upshot is that because patents exist, some folks go
for that and in the process fail to consider copyright?

I must be having a bad day. I'll re-read this tomorrow.

Jon

 

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us@4ax.com>,
Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

<SNIP>

But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in
nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.

And of course they *should* be based on domain expert
witnesses, impartial and in good faith.

Jon

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

 

[Walter Banks]

Albert van der Horst wrote:

In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us@4ax.com>,
Jon Kirwan <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:

SNIP

But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in
nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.

And of course they *should* be based on domain expert
witnesses, impartial and in good faith.

I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally less
expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases
that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a
legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing
houses do win copyright cases .

 

[Albert van der Horst]

In article <4BCB6184.B70A9999@bytecraft.com>,
Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

Jon Kirwan wrote:

Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it
is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I
guess it is good it worked out that way.

Why should education and personal use be exempted, or
for that matter why should library of congress be exempted?


Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit
illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown
to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions.
The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her
copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain'
her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that
was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most
other accounts, though, according to what I've read about
this case.

A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte.

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.

But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is
already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet
you provide your own contrary evidence.

Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
The choice to exercise them is not always made.

You did nothing of the sort. You demonstrated the truth strength
of deep pockets in the US. The legislation and ideology of a country
is not god-given but it is there to serve its strength, lest it perishes.
As such the fundamentalist "freedom for the rich" ideology of the US
is on the loosing site compared to the more centralist ideology of China.
Especially the situation around IP is becoming counter productive.
IP is about things that don't exist (only the expression of IP exist),
and is a poor base for an economy.

There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
and China would be certain. The US might run out of spare parts after
two weeks of fighting ;-) , and there are no businessmen in China
willing to deliver in defiance of their government (as US patriots
would).

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

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst