In order to obtain a patent whether it be a mechanical device or an
algorithm, it has to be described in detail and is available for
anyone's perusal. There's nothing to prevent someone from studying the
algorithm and determining what are the essential characteristics. Then
programming something similar, perhaps making some effort at disguising
it. How will the orginal patent holder know whether his algorithm is
being used? Moreover how will he prove that infingement occurred? The
"copier" need not reveal his software code. I would would think that
someone who developed an algorithm would be better served obtaining a
trade-mark and agressively marketing his new invention. Without ever
revealing the algorithm.
Jay Warner wrote:
>
> Hi, Paige,
>
> I am also confident that your employer, Kodak, saw too it that you have
> an agreement with them, to the effect that what comes out of your head
> is theirs. I've signed a few of these, too. Received $1.00 for one :)
> I think they got their money's worth.
>
> Without conferring with a legal beagle (whose time is worth
> considerable...), I'd hazard a guess that mathematical principles, and
> perhaps the concepts of the algorithm, are universal and not
> patentable. The code to execute a principle/algorithm, however, can and
> is patented or otherwise withheld.
>
> I recall some years ago, when an expert on linear programming methods
> explained how a new analytic procedure for solutions was held back as a
> trade secret. At a conference workshop, the inventor of it would walk
> around the room as people worked on a problem, giving them encouragement
> by saying, 'your closer,' and 'that didn't work for me.' but he would
> not reveal how to do it, only a deep background type of confirmation.
> He was specifically enjoined from telling, it seems.
>
> Was this a free and open intellectual discussion? No way. Did it hold
> back progress & insight. Yup. On the other hand, did this person's
> employer pay a sizable salary to have him sitting around working it
> out? Yes, and if they hadn't, it is unlikely that the technique would
> have been discovered/invented. Patents run out, too.
>
> In the aluminum industry there are many patents around. The holders
> waste no time in cross licensing, at an agreed upon rate (usually
> pennies per pound produced). It is standard procedure. the key is
> whether the product of the invention is easily traceable. If I can buy
> a piece of aluminum and tell immediately that it was made using my
> patented process, then I can go after the makers for my piece.
>
> Can the results of patented software be traced in the same manner?
> Maybe not, but the code can be. Especially if it is provided in
> compiled form. but the software industry has a long history of flat out
> rip-offs. "What's in code is mine, and only big evil companies would
> take money for what I want." A very adolescent attitude, perhaps, but
> also not a good attitude on which to found cross licensing of patents.
>
> So I don't think that patenting of software will make others' software
> worse, or cumbersomely unusable. I think unwillingness to work out
> cross licensing agreements, and stick to them, may cause greater problems.
>
> Jay
>
> Paige Miller wrote:
>
> > dennis roberts wrote:
> >
> >> just think about all the software packages ... and what they would HAVE (or
> >> HAD) to do if these routines were "patented" ...
> >>
> >> sure, i see "inventing" some algorithm as being a highly creative act and
> >> usually, if it is of value, the person(s) developing it will gain fame (ha
> >> ha) and some pr ... but, not quite in the same genre of developing a
> >> process for extracting some enzyme from a substance ... using a particular
> >> piece of equipment specially developed for that purpose
> >>
> >> i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ...
> >
> >
> > If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I
> > invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in
> > making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one
> > else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my
> > employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical
> > inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other
> > inventions.
> >
>
> --
> Jay Warner
> Principal Scientist
> Warner Consulting, Inc.
> 4444 North Green Bay Road
> Racine, WI 53404-1216
> USA
>
> Ph: (262) 634-9100
> FAX: (262) 681-1133
> email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> web: http://www.a2q.com
>
> The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
>
> =================================================================
> Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
> the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
> http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
> =================================================================
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
