1. Home
  2. Electronics Down Under
  3. a computer program is not a patentable invention
  4. Page 4

a computer program is not a patentable invention

I'm not sure I follow the semantic intent of your words here. Each word makes sense by itself. But not together. So I suppose this is why I didn't make much of this paragraph, yesterday.

Since I didn't get the first paragraph, this "based on" part doesn't add much for me.

I think I understand this. But I don't fully agree with the thrust. Patents can last around two decades and in the computer field that is "almost forever." In other words, about the "same as" copyright protection. And copyright can be "worked around." Patents cannot be nearly so easily.

In other words, I don't place nearly as much emphasis on the difference of duration as you seem to make of it.

Since folks without very deep pockets (a term I read you using elsewhere, today) don't really have access to patent protection (I've had the luxury to work with patent attorneys on two uncomfortable stretches in my life and in both cases the costs were about US$60k/loose-man-month), copyright provides _stronger_ protection, since it exists at all for them. As you mentioned elsewhere, individuals and small companies actually win such cases.

For those with deep pockets, of course, I will agree that copyright does provide weaker protection. But I think I read you saying that removing patent protection would cause more teeth in copyright protection. I'm still not following that thread of thought and the above doesn't help me. Yet.

I think that is the question you already answered, expressing an opinion that it would.

And here is a broken fragment that I'm not sure about. Did you mean to retract the earlier point [by adding 'think so' to the above?] Or?

And this is where I am still hung up. It feels like you are suggesting what I earlier thought you were and which doesn't make any sense to me. Let me take this slowly.

(1) Copyright exists on works, today, even if you don't register them officially. (I think.) One only needs a few words, at most, with software anyway.

(2) As you mention elsewhere, only deep pockets have access to patent protection. Such folks certainly have ALL the necessary advice they need with copyright.

(3) Parsing your words above, I gather that you are talking about a group of people/companies that had "patentable software" that was "relatively unprotected" because the authors were ignorant about copyright? Isn't that an argument that they _use_ copyright?

(4) You mention a "sheer threshold" regarding patents and I take your meaning to be that this "patentable software" couldn't reach that threshold. Yes? Because they don't have enough money? If so, the loss of software patents won't affect them, anyway.

I'm still not following the argument about why you think that the loss of software patents would add _more_ teeth to software protection in the US than it already enjoys.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

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

Reply to
terryc

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

Tom

Reply to
Tom

I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is here.

Remember, software patents are a peculiarity of the USA (there are a few patents issued by other countries that are arguably "software patents", but these are not common). You don't have to speculate about what would happen without software patents - you simply have to look to Europe.

If the USA dropped software patents, it would become more common to bring copyright cases to court - in a country with companies addicted to suing each other, if software patents are removed then they will use copyrights. Since to some extent American courts make up the law as they go along ("precedence"), this may lead to some changes in copyright law, or its interpretation, in the USA.

The "sheer threshold of getting a software patent" !?! Have you ever /looked/ at the sort of junk that gets patented in the USA? All you have to do is use long technical words that the patent "examiner" can't understand, drown the document in soporific legalise, pay your fee on time and you get your patent. There are certainly some people that take patent applications seriously and only apply for inventions that are truly innovative and useful. But patent offices are swamped with nonsense patents (in all countries, but the USA more than others, and in all fields, but software more than others). Most are granted to large companies that have employees specialising in making as wide and vague patents as they can.

Are you trying to say that there are lots of people out there writing new, innovative and useful software, who understand about software patents (but don't have the time, money or expertise to get one), yet don't understand even the basics about copyright? Have these mythical developers never looked at any other software? Never seen a "Help About" box with a copyright notice? Never read a book? I can well believe they don't know the rights they have with copyrights, or even that copyright is automatic (many people think you have to register it in some way). But I simply don't believe that anyone capable of writing software that has a valid claim for a software patent (by USA standards) is incapable of googling for "copyright".

Reply to
David Brown

In message , Albert van der Horst writes

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     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply to
Chris H

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

Reply to
Didi

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     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply to
Chris H

A few years ago I would have agreed with you on speed of the computer field. I don't see the speed now. We are still selling tools for processors whose instruction sets were developed in the mid to late 70's.

One of my current projects started in 1998 and we have support contracts to 2016 that are very likely to be extended

15 or 17 years is is not a long time anymore. It now takes 5-8 years to launch new processors and about as long again to get them designed in.

A major reference document that we use was written in 60's and revised in the 70's. It has a copyright and has outlived many patents.

I don't agree. Patent's are far more protective of a narrow range of claims that need to be predefined. The copyright control of derivative works makes the copyright holder able to control material in ways that were not even imagined when the copyright was issued.

Had the LCD control patent been a copyright there would still be a lot of licence fees being paid. This patent was organized the way a copyright could have been. LCD material requires that the average voltage be across the material be zero. The patent author detailed essentially all the ways an LCD display could be driven or scanned and keep the average display voltage zero.

Once usage goes beyond fair use a copyright can be powerful protection. In general fair use does not allow someone to profit from the use of a copyright they do not own. (I know there are exceptions to this)

Regards,

Walter..

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

formatting link

Reply to
Walter Banks

The key to my comments are that patents require a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed.

This not only means that the invention must be novel but the inventor must have specific vision on how the invention is going to be used.

Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision.

Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine and confused my earlier comments.

Regards,

Walter..

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

formatting link

Reply to
Walter Banks

You are referring here to a tiny niche market. In the huge majority of the software world, a couple of years is a long time. Support contracts lasting as long as 3 years are extra cost. If you are a large company and want long-term support from a small company with a great new product, you can't rely on that company existing in a few years time - you just buy the company.

If patents, and software patents in particular, were only given for truly new, innovative and useful ideas, then I might agree with you somewhat - there have been relatively few good "inventions" in software (or processor design, since you mentioned that) in recent times. There's been plenty of progress, but little in the way of revolutionary ideas that justify a patent.

Patents are typically written as broadly as the author can make it. When Jon says you cannot easily work around them, what he means is you can do your own development totally independently of the patent - typically with no idea the patent exists - and still fall foul of it. And because of the way patents are granted, and the way the courts work in the USA, it really doesn't even matter if you wrote the software long before the person who got the patent. If the patent-holder wants to sue you, it's going to cost you a great deal of money - whether you are "innocent" or not, and whether the patent is valid or not. And that's just because you came up with an idea that someone else also had.

Copyrights, on the other hand, are very much narrower - they cover an implementation of an idea, not the idea itself. Thus you are perfectly at liberty to do a clean-room re-implementation of the same ideas. Thus you are not allowed to steal other people's work, but you /are/ allowed to do the work again yourself.

Your example doesn't make sense. You can't copyright an idea, or a method, or a way to control an LCD. You can copyright a datasheet or instruction manual for the LCD. Patents and copyrights apply to different things.

Note that I don't think anyone here has argued against the idea of patents for this sort of thing. While many people (myself included) would like to see wide-ranging changes to the way patents are granted, the duration, and the way conflicts are resolved (in the USA in particular, but also more generally throughout the world), I don't think patents should be abandoned entirely. /Software/ patents should be abandoned in the USA, like the rest of the world. But I see nothing wrong with the inventor of the LCD (or its control mechanisms) having a patent for that, for a few years.

No one is arguing that copyright can give powerful protection - and that one of the main aims is let people have use of the copyrighted material without getting economic gain through its abuse.

The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers.

Reply to
David Brown

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.

Reply to
David Brown

I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and protecting IP.

w..

Reply to
Walter Banks

OK, we agree on that - thanks for clearing this up. I'm think we differ a little on the weightings for the reasons for disliking software patents - you say they are ineffective at encouraging innovation, while I believe they directly discourage far more innovation than they encourage. In other words, they are not just unnecessary, but a direct hindrance to progress.

Reply to
David Brown

I see what you are saying now.

I think the confusion was at least partly because you are talking about how the /theoretical/ requirements for software patents (it must be novel, clearly described, and useful with a view to implementation), while we have been talking about the /actual/ requirements to getting a software patent in the USA (write enough words, pay the fee).

We agree that even if the patent office did a proper job, software patents are unnecessary and provide little or no benefit to anyone. And because of the way the USA patent office actually works, software patents are directly harmful.

Note that this is not really due to incompetence or other failings of the patent office itself, or its staff. The current USA patent system requires the patent offices to earn money. Since they earn a fee on each registered patent, while any work done checking the validity of a patent application takes time and therefore money, the obvious profit strategy is to rubber-stamp everything that passes a first-glance inspection, and leave it to the courts to figure out if it should have been issued or not. And since the USA civil courts are based on money (with a little law on the side) rather than any requirement for truth or justice, if you can afford lawyers you can get your dodgy patents strengthened just by winning a game of lawyer expenses chicken.

Reply to
David Brown

But don't they appear to have played and still play a role amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite a large payout by Microsoft.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large companies. But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage innovation and to protect IP, neither of which is at issue in the majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending "their" IP. The role played by software patents does neither - it's a protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those who don't quietly pay up.

There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are known as "patent trolls". And it's not because trolls are renowned for being innovative or protective.

Reply to
David Brown

And amongst smaller companies if the leave the "living in the cracks" and start looking like they are muscling into more profitable territory.

***were*** designed. I think that is long gone.

Yes.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

In message , Jon Kirwan writes

Only in the USA. I don't thing SW patents are used anywhere else. IT is also why they never will be.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Reply to
Chris H

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.