I think you misunderstand the issue. Patentâs only exist if you apply for them and can make a case with the Official body granting the patent that the innovation you are applying for has a unique and original application. Software and other inventions may make use of previously existing knowledge, even patented knowledge, and still be an original and unique application (but you would still owe a licence fee to another patent if you used it in a commercial product that exploits your own patent.)
Concepts do not get patented in and of themselves. This is a point which people are often confused. It is concept plus application that gets patented. Thus Edison could get a patent for converting electrical energy into visible light in the specific instance of the incandescent lamp. But he could not patent the concept in itself since there would be nothing for the patent clerk to decide on. The LZW algorithm applied specifically to the manner in which data is stored in a computer memory or hard drive. The algorithm behind could not be without having the reference to the manner in which data is organized inside computers. Einstein couldnât patent e=mc2 but the Atomic bomb could have been if it were developed as a commercial application rather than as a means to kill innocent civilians effortlessly. There are many specific instances where you could argue the merits on whether a patent could exist in particular circumstances. Note the attempts currently underway to claim patent rights on the JPG compression algorithm. This is one for the lawyers to decide but it does not invalidate the concept that patents can and should be applied for in software that deserves to be patented. Software is not a mere aggregation of previously existing algorithms. Adobe Distiller makes use of the âFast Fourier Transformâ, and essential part of the JPG compression algorithm. And yet, it makes a unique application of this knowledge when embedding image data into a PDF file. Adobe applied for and owns patents for Distiller and the PDF format itself primarily because they perceived a need for this feature and created a unique feature compelling enough to the patent granting authority that the general public would benefit by having this knowledge made available to the world rather than being locked away. So in exchange for sharing this knowledge, Adobe agreed to make this public in exchange for a time limited franchise to exploit this. People often miss this point. Patents make knowledge freely available by granting the inventor a temporary franchise over the invention. The Pythagoreans famously kept their knowledge secret in order to increase their bargaining position as mathematicians and philosophers (who got paid to advice monarchs.) Pythagoreans alive today would have simply patented their knoledge and sold the license to any bidder willing to pay the fee. The benefit, of course is the knowledge became free for exploitation by the public sooner than would otherwise have happened. The other missed point I note is the concept of software code being copyrighted. This is a completely bogus concept. You can copyright a book or other publishing medium containing code. You can copyright executable files in the same sense that you could copyright waveforms on a vinyl disk. But you cannot copyright the code itself much the same as you cannot copyright the notes that make up a song. You can however copyright a music sheet wherein the notes are printed. Source code represents a design and makes no sense in and off itself without a surrounding reference (a book in which it is contained or a method or device for compiling and creating executable versions of it.) Thus code in itself should be patented, not copyrighted. By the same token, you can patent a design for a machine and submit drawings for this when applying for the patent. You could then incorporate these drawings into a book and have the book copyrighted. But the patent for the device remains separate from the copyright for the book in which the device is published. In a very real sense, patents are less restrictive than copyrights and serve the public benefit more. As long as you are willing to pay a licence, you can immediately create a product out of an invention and after a few years, you no longer have to renew your licence. With a copyright, you have to wait for 75 years (under current US law, 50 years in most countries) after the creator passes away to avoid paying a licence. I truly hope this calarifies the issue for some of you out there. Iâve been following this argument for a long time now. It initially came up in the mid eighties when the issue of software copyrights came up. Up to then, it was assumed that patents could take care of any IP rights issues on software. Many arguments went back and forth (including many of the ones Iâve been reading in this forum) and in the end, it was decided that published code could be copyrighted. There was never any real issue of patents until fairly recently since it was always assumed that this was the only natural means for dealing with this. As it turns out, some people got hold of the same argument that others had been using against patents for drugs and thought it would be pretty neat to apply these to software as well, thus the current drive agains software patents. Believe me when I say that it will never happen that software will be free from patents. Itâs against the public benefit and it takes too much effort to protect invention privately when the knowledge will leak out anyway. Patents allow commercial applications to surface sooner rather than later and we should be fighting to keep it that way. On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:10:10 +0800, Ricky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Disagree. The algorithm is only a part of the total picture. Yes they look > like algorithms but consider the investment in man-hours, equipment and > training to develop software. What is being patented is the result of a > significant investment in resources. Patents protect this investment from > being exploited by others who did not make a similar investment. What is > important is the financial impact on the inventor, not the nature of the > invention. I disagree further. The algorithms are the core parts of software. Without algorithms your "software" wouldn't even exist. Patenting software would be similar to " I'm patenting the statement '1+1=2' and I alone would have exclusive use over that statement unless you pay" as software is but mere aggregation of algorithms translated into programming language. Unless you can find an alternate means of expressing 2 is the sum of 1 and 1 in hindu arabic notation then I guess you're entitled to a patent. > The same applies to all other forms invention. Drugs may be based on plants > picked from a rainforest but the pharmaceutical firm had to go through a > large investment of resources to turn this into a practical product. Even the > lightbulb - a truly revolutionary product - required many hours of investment > at Edison's laboratory. Do note that even if Edison did patent the incandescent bulb, it didn't stifle innovation of the flourescent lamps as the core science behind illumination through the use of electricity wasn't patented. Try reversing it - patent the science - and there goes innovation. The same is similar with patenting software - essentially you'd be patenting the math (the IDEA) behind software. Patenting the science behind software would really cripple innovation in the software field. > So whereas patents protect ideas, the investment in formulating the idea is > what is being protected, not the idea itself. Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph .. To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug .. Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
