Hi, Paige,
I am also confident that your employer, Kodak, saw too it that you have
an agreement with them, to the effect that what comes out of your head
is theirs. I've signed a few of these, too. Received $1.00 for one :)
I think they got their money's worth.
Without conferring with a legal beagle (whose time is worth
considerable...), I'd hazard a guess that mathematical principles, and
perhaps the concepts of the algorithm, are universal and not
patentable. The code to execute a principle/algorithm, however, can and
is patented or otherwise withheld.
I recall some years ago, when an expert on linear programming methods
explained how a new analytic procedure for solutions was held back as a
trade secret. At a conference workshop, the inventor of it would walk
around the room as people worked on a problem, giving them encouragement
by saying, 'your closer,' and 'that didn't work for me.' but he would
not reveal how to do it, only a deep background type of confirmation.
He was specifically enjoined from telling, it seems.
Was this a free and open intellectual discussion? No way. Did it hold
back progress & insight. Yup. On the other hand, did this person's
employer pay a sizable salary to have him sitting around working it
out? Yes, and if they hadn't, it is unlikely that the technique would
have been discovered/invented. Patents run out, too.
In the aluminum industry there are many patents around. The holders
waste no time in cross licensing, at an agreed upon rate (usually
pennies per pound produced). It is standard procedure. the key is
whether the product of the invention is easily traceable. If I can buy
a piece of aluminum and tell immediately that it was made using my
patented process, then I can go after the makers for my piece.
Can the results of patented software be traced in the same manner?
Maybe not, but the code can be. Especially if it is provided in
compiled form. but the software industry has a long history of flat out
rip-offs. "What's in code is mine, and only big evil companies would
take money for what I want." A very adolescent attitude, perhaps, but
also not a good attitude on which to found cross licensing of patents.
So I don't think that patenting of software will make others' software
worse, or cumbersomely unusable. I think unwillingness to work out
cross licensing agreements, and stick to them, may cause greater problems.
Jay
Paige Miller wrote:
> dennis roberts wrote:
>
>> just think about all the software packages ... and what they would HAVE (or
>> HAD) to do if these routines were "patented" ...
>>
>> sure, i see "inventing" some algorithm as being a highly creative act and
>> usually, if it is of value, the person(s) developing it will gain fame (ha
>> ha) and some pr ... but, not quite in the same genre of developing a
>> process for extracting some enzyme from a substance ... using a particular
>> piece of equipment specially developed for that purpose
>>
>> i hope we don't see a trend IN this direction ...
>
>
> If it so happens that while I am in the employ of a certain company, I
> invent some new algorithm, then my company has a vested interest in
> making sure that the algorithm remains its property and that no one
> else uses it, especially a competitor. Thus, it is advantageous for my
> employer to patent such inventions. In this view, mathematical
> inventions are no different than mechanical, chemical or other
> inventions.
>
--
Jay Warner
Principal Scientist
Warner Consulting, Inc.
4444 North Green Bay Road
Racine, WI 53404-1216
USA
Ph: (262) 634-9100
FAX: (262) 681-1133
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
web: http://www.a2q.com
The A2Q Method (tm) -- What do you want to improve today?
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
