a computer program is not a patentable invention - Page 3

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


Quoted text here. Click to load it

The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK.
It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war...
If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor.
They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves,
fuel included.

Dimiter


Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


In message < snipped-for-privacy@f17g2000vbd.googlegroup
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The Chinese can sink the USD in  matter of hours.  Then the US can not
buy fuel or food on the international markets.  Actually the US could
not by anything or do any business.....  no matter how many tanks it
has.



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


Quoted text here. Click to load it

Doing that would do enormous damage to China as well.  What's that
saying - if you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem, but
if you owe the bank a billion, the bank has a problem?  China is the
USA's bank - dropping the USD would mean giving up on the very large sum
of money owed it by the USA.

Of course, it's a useful last resort (from China's viewpoint).  It's not
quite MAD, since the USA would come off a lot worse than China, but it's
no easy option.


Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention



<SNIP>

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Groetjes Albert

--
--
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention




Albert van der Horst wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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 .




Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:45:24 -0400, Walter Banks

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I also agree, having worked with patent attorneys charging
upwards of US$60k/loose-man-month.

So this suggests dividing the entire patent and copyright
issue into at least two separate categories:  as it applies
to "deep pockets" and as it applies to "shallow pockets."
Patents are largely off the table for shallow pockets, so all
there is is copyright.

Jon

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention




Quoted text here. Click to load it

Now that would be interesting to actually see, one of them impartial
expert witnesses, rather than just another mouthpiece for hire.

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


Quoted text here. Click to load it

I always thought there is a reason why they are called Court of Law and not
Court of Justice...

Tom

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention




Hans-Bernhard Brker wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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..





OT: M&B Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention



Quoted text here. Click to load it

So which colour Mills & Boon do you write?

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:18:39 -0400, Walter Banks

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention



Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


David Brown Inscribed thus:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


On Apr 18, 5:35A0%pm, David Brown
Quoted text here. Click to load it

David, this is spot on.

Dimiter




Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention




Quoted text here. Click to load it

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?


Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention




terryc wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

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
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: a computer program is not a patentable invention


Quoted text here. Click to load it

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.

Site Timeline