On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 23:50:28 +0800, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:24:43 +0800 > Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It doesn't work that way. Patents != Copyrights. Even lawyers would > > confirm this. Even the purpose of copyrights and patents are being > > misconstrued as being the same when in fact it's worlds apart. > > Lawyers will always argue that way. That is why a judge is needed to > resolve the differing points of view. But I agree that these two are > different. However, they do share something in common. They are both > used to protect the right of the creator of original work. > They might share the same purpose of protecting something, but what they protect, and the reason they protect that thing are just way too different. The popular mistake was to construe one that works for one class for another class - that something that qualifies for copyrights can therefore automatically be qualification for qualification of patent protection.
> > Copyrights are designed to protect authors from getting their writings > > bootlegged and unduly claimed by other people. For writings to be > > copyrighted, it must be original. Patents on the other hand were > > designed to protect processes, machines, or products born of > > manufacturing or composition (read: tangible product) that would have > > to be novel and non-obvious. It must not have been part of prior art > > or an obvious variation of prior art. > > I agree. Copyrights protect against illegal copying (hence the word). > Patents protect processes, machines, etc. But both of these ultimately > tries to protect the rights of the creator. > > > Software cannot qualify for patents given these conditions. Patenting > > software would essentially lock the techniques (which are merely > > aggregation of algorithms translated into language). This is different > > from physically inventing something or doing something for ornamental > > purposes - both which patents can protect, as real products were > > produced in the process. > > They may be just aggregations of algorithms but it still required > some human intervention to happen. This act, whether founded on noble > causes or folly, is what a patent strives to protect. It distinguishes > those who apply their knowledge from those who are simply knowledgeable. > Our own society's progress is built on the aggregation and the > application of knowledge. When a technique/process is patented, it may > appear to lock progress. I don't believe it does. In my opinion, it > raises the bar. It would get us past the process of simply building, > say, a better mousetrap and instead force us to think of other ways to > catch the mouse. > Unfortunately, this can't be said of software - do note that software, while being aggregation of algorithms, is also an expression of the said algorithms. If this were the case - not anyone can aggregate the algorithms and express them as certain combinations of them are locked for the exclusive use of someone. Should someone would stumble a better algorithm on his own (and this does happen, given that it's mere aggregation of algorithms that you get to do even bigger tasks, express them into programming language, and now you have software) that would infringe on the patented combination of algorithms then that user cannot even use the better algorithm he created. The developer is then forced to use other algorithms that may not be even the best rather than the most obvious or optimal given that someone has patented a particular order of algorithms. > Software are real products. It is something we interact with everyday. > Therefore, it is something patents can protect. Given this reasoning - even news articles and books would qualify for patents. > > It does take a lot of time and effort to generate software (I should > > now, I am in the same business). While it does not miraculously appear > > out of thin air, it doesn't qualify to be novel as it doesn't bring > > any new tangible thing to the world - but merely an aggregate > > expression of human ideas yet still within the intellectual realm. > > Concept and the application of concept are two different things. The > former, intellectual yes. But the latter is tangible. Like I wrote > above, it is something we physically interact with everyday. > Not in all cases.The concept of words is intellectual. The application of words into sentences that state a story is still intellectual, whether you write it unto paper or place it as text of a word processor document. Same goes with software - its merely an aggregation of concepts (algorithms) expressed into programming language. It still remains within the realm of the intellectual as it does not produce any new material nor transformed into something that can be physically used as a utility or portrayed as ornament. > > Software is just algorithms aggregated into another language (there > > are a lot of ways to combine certain algorithms, much more languages > > to express the aggregation). It still remains as one thing though - an > > expression of thought, an idea. For this case, copyright is more > > appropriate. > > Copyrights merely protect the copyrightholder against those who would > make copies of his work without his consent. Techniques and processes > which are inherent in software should likewise be protected work of the > person who spent the time and resources to conceive and develop them. > While sharing this knowledge freely and openly would greatly help the > community, the choice to do so is ultimately his own. There are many > ways of how this can be abused. But consider the alternative. Some may > choose not to share the knowledge instead if in the end they are not > acknowledged for it. But then, these techniques and processes are just born of the mathematical concepts and are just expressed into another language. It didn't change state from something conceptual to something physical. It remained still an expression of an idea. So how novel is transforming aggregate knowledge into basically yet again another aggregate knowledge just expressed in another language? It's way different from producing a real, physical manifestation of matter out of applying various algorithms, processes or scientific knowledge. Trying to construe one method that works in one class of work as appropriate for another class of work is just folly. -- 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
