| |||||||||||||
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Posted Nov 6, 2012 1:19 UTC (Tue) by fest3er (guest, #60379)Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
The solution is simple. The law is clear: ideas can be copyrighted, not patented. Software is an intangible idea, not a tangible inventions; it cannot be patented. So stop allowing the USPTO to patent ideas.
(Log in to post comments)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 1:26 UTC (Tue) by dalen (guest, #87654) [Link]
Well, you could argue that a chemical process is an idea not a tangible invention, yet they can be patented (not saying they should be patentable though).
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 3:22 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Chemical process is not an abstract idea. I can dream of any compound (say, HeSiFO) but that doesn't make them existing.
So chemical processes and compounds are more analogous to classic mechanical inventions.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 1:24 UTC (Wed) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
A series of steps describing how to trigger a specific chemical reaction are no less abstract then a series of steps necessary to make one set of numbers smaller then another set and then still being able to create recognizable audio reproduction.
The the rules setup for patents are completely arbitrary. There is no governing logic or natural system that patents are derived from. If patents exist the best you can hope for is that they are setup in a way the at is profitable for you.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 7, 2012 2:30 UTC (Wed) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Nope. There's a crucial difference - set of steps for chemical reaction is not abstract. That's a real-world description of a real-world process.
You can (in theory) get result of any algorithm by performing its steps on a piece of paper. You can't get a result of a chemical reaction by performing it on a piece of paper.
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Dec 5, 2012 5:25 UTC (Wed) by ghane (subscriber, #1805) [Link]
> You can (in theory) get result of any algorithm by performing its steps on a piece of paper.
If I was to use pebbles on a large piece of cloth, to "reduce a set of numbers to another, for audio reproduction", would that be OK?
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Dec 5, 2012 8:41 UTC (Wed) by jezuch (subscriber, #52988) [Link]
> If I was to use pebbles on a large piece of cloth, to "reduce a set of numbers to another, for audio reproduction", would that be OK?
Yup. http://xkcd.com/505/
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 6, 2012 1:33 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] You have it backwards: patents cover ideas (within limits); ideas are not copyrightable. Copyright can cover a particular way of expressing an idea. Good thing, too, or free software would have to wait more than 100 years, not 20, to implement an idea if someone got a legal monopoly on it.
Software is very much an implementation of an idea or ideas that are rather tangible. Posted Nov 6, 2012 17:26 UTC (Tue) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] I do agree that generic software patents that are more ideas than implementations (such as using an icon representation of some file instead of the actual file) should not be patentable.Actually I find it more interesting that software is copyrightable but a recipe is not. Yet it is possible to patent a recipe and so it makes sense that software should be patentable. But obviousness and uniqueness need to be held to strict standards especially with the Benson and Mayo decisions to ensure that the specific implementation rather than the actual idea is being patented.
Software is very much an implementation of an idea or ideas that are rather tangible. Posted Nov 6, 2012 19:28 UTC (Tue) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
A simple recipe is not copyrightable because a simple recipe describes a very particular end product, and there's only a single recipe which can produce that end product. You can't change "1/4 cup of sugar" to "1/8 cup of sugar". Therefore, to copyright the recipe would be to, effectively, create a monopoly on that end product. Back in the old days judges still believed they had the power to prevent absurd legal outcomes, and they thought it absurd--or at least unintentional--that copyright could be wielded in such a way to restrain commerce and transfer of knowledge.
Any piece of software which, like a simple recipe, cannot be expressed any other way is, likewise, not copyrightable. Theoretically. Likewise, there undoubtedly exist many recipes which are copyrightable, presuming they're creative and expressive enough, and are not the only way to express the ingredients and method of preparation. For example, a method of preparation written in iambic pentameter, perhaps with some other flourishes for good measure. You would be free, of course, to extract and copy the simple recipe from such a work.
|
|||||||||||||