Oh, gosh. This discussion has "slid over" a bit ... from being able to reprint
one's own work, through the relationship between code and copy right and not to
patents.
Could somebody ... perhaps our Mr. Reilly ... clarify in a general way the
relationship between these topics?
Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([email protected])
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
----- Original Message -----
From: Miles Parker
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Sent: 10/3/2009 9:31:14 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Publishing Agreements (was "More mumbo-jumbo")
On Oct 3, 2009, at 10:24 PM, russell standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 03, 2009 at 07:07:00PM -0700, Miles Parker wrote:
IANAL of course, but in general this situation is no different form one
where ay someone has an idea, tells it to someone else, and that someone
else writes a book about it. Ideas can't be copyrighted but software can;
and implementations of ideas can be patented. (Yuck, though..) Am I right
No - only the ideas can be patented. The whole software patent brouha
revolves around people patenting fairly obvious software algorithms
for marginally novel uses. But it is not the software itself that is
patented - if I write a piece of software that implements someone
patented algorithm, then I am potentially infringing that patent,
regardless of whether I even know the patent existed.
Poorly worded. What I *meant* to say was that ideas can only be patented if one
can demonstrate a potential (even if virtual) implementation and use. IOTW
Einstein couldn't patent relativity and then claim rights to nuclear energy. If
he designed the basic schema for a nuclear power plant then he could.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
