> On 5/19/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> It doesn't seem as clear-cut to me. An arrangement of transistors >> is patentable. A ROM is a complex arrangement of transistors. >> By implication you can patent the pattern stored in the ROM. >> (I'm not referring to a PROM. But a ROM, where the wiring actually >> encodes the data.) >> >> Many decades ago I heard a rumor that IBM implemented a an algorithm >> in transistors in order to patent it. At that point the patent >> was claimed to cover software implementations of the same thing. >> >> Historically I have been a chip designer. Did it for 3 decades. >> I've also done a moderate quantity of software. To me the distinction >> between the two is pretty hazy. One of the first tasks in defining >> a new ASIC is to decide how much of it is done in HW and how much >> in SW. The decision is based on cost, both silicon cost and cost >> of development. Is it reasonable that we can patent one implementation >> but not the other? Seems odd to me. > > > You base this idea on the belief that patenting the ROMs was the "right" > thing to do, that they are clearly patentable, and extend that idea to > software. But what if they're not? What about the other way? Say we > establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that software is not patentable > because > it is a "description of an abstract idea or mathematical algorithm"[1]. > According to existing patent law, this _should_ be a pretty clear and > accepted statement, "Logic and algorithms aren't patentable". Then we > extend > from there the other direction, into the hardware. In that case the ROMs > you > speak of would not _entirely_ be patentable. Only the physical > implementation or circuit layout would be, but not the logic that they > encode. A real zealot could even take it further and argue that unless > their > physical attributes were particularly novel, say they created some new > kind > of logic gate, that the physical attributes are really just the "language" > that expresses the logic, and that's not actually patentable either! In > that > case, only the packaging of the ROM would be patentable, but then you > start > losing footing because of prior art and obviousness.
Not exactly. I am not judging whether it is "right" to be able to patent ROMs. Specifically with their content. Rather I am trying to follow the logic of hardware versus software. As I understand the original patent process, and what Marbux appears to be trying to restore, if the invention is embodied in physical form then it is patentable. Otherwise not. And I am arguing that even this line is fuzzy when examined closely. That's not to say that it cannot be used as a delineation. After all, laws have frequently dealt with fuzzy notions. Makes it a bit chancy to take your case to court. But such is life. > In this light, even Marbux's point about the "bright line" of patentable > and > unpatentable being between physical and not becomes muddy. As he points > out > though, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I'd argue that the physical / > not break is a fairly good place to do it, but it must also specifically > state that the patent covers only the particular physical implementation > of > the logic, not the logic itself. I agree. And I like your description better. "Fairly good" It isn't perfect. But we don't seem to have a lot of good alternatives. > Patents were created to protects "inventions", and it has been widely > established that software is an "expression" like math, music, art, or > literature. That's why it's already protected by copyrights. And like art, > music, and literature, software (and more generally, logic and algorithms) > are built upon the prior art of others. Each piece being a derivative of > the > work that came before it. Since patents are designed to protect "certain > details of a device, method, process or composition of matter (substance) > (known as an invention <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention>) which is > new <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelty_%28patent%29>, > inventive<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness>, > and useful <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_%28patent%29> or > industrially > applicable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_applicability>."[2]. I > think in that portion of the definition of what is patentable is the core > of > our problem, the word "process". How do you define the difference between > a > "process" and an "algorithm"? It would be difficult to do so, and I don't > believe that the USPTO has sufficiently differentiated the two. Perhaps > they > should have left out the word process? Good example! Drawing lines between processes and algorithms makes a "distinction without a difference". They are the same. If you can patent one you should be able to patent the other. If you cannot patent one, you should not be able to patent the other. > Arguably, the entire software patent issue is a result of monied > corporations wanting to have their cake and eat it too, which was enabled > by > a broken patent system that issued patents that it should not have. This > point of view is further strengthened by the _mountains_ of questionable > patents that have been issued in the last 20 years, for software or > otherwise. That's the real reason that this has become such a quagmire, > the > organization that is supposed to be regulating the system is so > incompetent > and self-contradictory that it breeds confusion rather than increasing > clarity. Add to this dodgy legislation like the DMCA, and the slide to > treating unpatentable "intellectual property"[3] (I hate that phrase) like > the patentable "real property" of physical inventions becomes easy and > fast, > and here we are. > > "The illusion of freedom [in America] will continue as long as it's >> profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion >> becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the >> scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables >> and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back >> of the theater." --- Frank Zappa > > > Well put Mr. Zappa. > > [1] - > http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/software_aint_patentable_damn_it > [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent ( I know it's lame to refer to > wikipedia, but I couldn't find another good online reference for this > point > quickly.) > [3] - http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm > -- > -Regards- > > -Quentin Hartman- By the way, I am now able to watch the wmv files. It seems that vlc works a lot better than totem. Thanks guys. -- Allen _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
