On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:23, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Chris BONDE wrote: > > Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way > > of expressing the idea. > > In which way is a copyright a monopoly over an idea?
A copyright on a document or work of art protects the expression of the ideas in it. It in no way asserts the unique ownership of that idea. To give an example, Tolkien has some rather nasty characters with big teeth - the orcs. The copyright on his text asserts his "ownership" of the combination of characters and situations in his texts. In no way does it prohibit others from writing similar texts - as long as they do not use his characters without explicit agreement, or use exactly the same situations, locations, etc. A patent is a monopoly on a development of an idea - not on that idea itself. Software patents are monopolies on ideas themselves. I blew a fuse at Newforge today over this self-same idea http://trends.newsforge.com/trends/05/05/30/1155209.shtml?tid=147 "Patent law provides for the object to be patented, to be presented in prototype form, and its details divulged so that anyone with an inkling of technical know-how can reproduce it. But patent law also provides that anything worth patenting must be non-trivial. "Now software patent attorneys apparently are satisfied with submitting patent applications without the object of the patent, the software, to be presented in prototype form, ie, in full source code form, and its details so divulged together with all and any relevant pieces of documentation. "In other words, software patent attorneys have done the otherwise unthinkable - they have NOT contested the claim that software patents are trivial and trivially-implementable, because they are seeking protection on the bare idea without reference to any implementation. If their only evidence is the idea that such-and-such, and they are seeking protection on the very idea itself and not on any specific implementation, they must believe that any specific implementation is trivial. "And if it is trivial to implement software on the basic idea, then it is not worthy of any protection whatsoever, because it adds nothing to industry." Wesley Parish > I believe that "an expression of an idea" and an "idea" are very > different. I accept that the former should be "protected", but not the > latter. > > > Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing > > their idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent). > > That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents. The intention > of patents was to encourage people to work on developing ideas with the > promise that, in return, they would be granted a temporary monopoly. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish ----- Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui? You ask, what is the most important thing? Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata. I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
