On Jul 9, 2005, at 8:03 AM, Bryan Maynard wrote:
If patents are applied to software, at what level of astraction do
we stop
allowing patents? As Kodak has, so elequently, show - you can
obtain a patent
for: "two machines communicating in an Object Oriented way". This
means that
it is not only possible, but plausible and adventageous to patent
the for
loop and other computational constructs. Within a year all
consrtucts of
computing could, very realisticly, be patented.
An invention implemented in software has long been patentable. Your
"Within a year all consrtucts of computing could, very realisticly,
be patented" is already demonstrated as unrealistic.
Just because something can be abused there is no reason to throw the
baby out with the bath water. Its pretty well documented that money
can buy lawyers to make up == down, set Simpson, Jackson, and Scrushy
free.
The problem is not "software patents" but that fool patents are
issued for existing art. Likely that is the case with the Kodak
patent mentioned. It certainly is the case in "Method for Exercising
a Cat."
Another which comes to mind claimed a patent on numbering the frames
for use as an index in a multimedia data file, as if film hasn't been
marked with footage during manufacture the past 50 or 80 years. As I
said earlier the wrongness is in considering software to be any
different than any other implementation, just as in the past a 10"
disk platter was considered fresh territory where 12" platter patents
did not apply.
Before I close, I would like to return to my point on software
licensing.
One question: Why are movies not patented? Why are "types" of
movies not
patented? I am not talking about patenting "action" movies or
"love" stories
(although that would be possible using the logic of those who
currently
support software patents). I am talking about the patenting of
documentable,
movie formulas:
1.a) Boy meets girl
1.b) Boy falls in love with girl
1.c) Boy losses girl
1.d) Boy gets girl back
1.e) Boy and girl live happily ever after
The answer is very simple, "prior art." The screenwriter did not
invent "boy meets girl." Or "boy meets boy." Or "boy meets dog." Or
"boy meets alien." Copyright protection last much longer than patent
and is easier to get. Especially when heavily borrowing from other's
ideas. Yet when one borrows too much one must hire lawyers for
defense. How much is too much? Well, the rich guys have to settle
that with battling lawyers. Exactly the same as with patents.
The wrongest solution is to deny a patent simply because it is
implemented in software. The ideal solution would be to have better
patent examiners, but "better" is anathema to government. USPO
examiners are patent lawyers perpetually showing off to prospective
employers at taxpayer's expense.
--
David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
========================================================================
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
