In order to patent a drug or anything else you have to reveal exactly
how you did it...to everyone. The exact chemical composition of the
drug is known. Viagra is the most potent (no pun) phosphodiesterase
inhibitor known. Can a drug company other than Pfizer make exactly the
same drug and sell it? No. Can another drug company synthesize a
slightly different phosphodiesterase inhibitor that is equally potent
(okay, it's a pun) and make millions? Sure. Look at the number of
congeners of Prozac out there. Copyright is similar, because the
copyright protects something in the public domain. Trade secret is
entirely different, and that's what's protecting most source code.
The move toward patenting algorithms (and it's quite a movement) is a
response to the perceived fragility of trade secrecy. But we know that
trade secrecy in software probably protects weakness not strength.
John
"Alvin B. Marcelo" wrote:
>
> But even if you knew how to concoct the drug, there is a patent on it
> preventing you from doing that ( or is there?) I thought Dilantin was
> prorietary for 17 years...until the patent expired...
>
> alvin
>
> If, in fact, the FDA and the DHSS are going to certify software without
> >revealing their tests, then that's a different standard of care. The
> >conceptual difference seems to be between patent and trade secret.
> >Drugs are patented meaning that their exact composition is well-known,
> >and software is trade secret. It's a problem.
> >John
