On 2006-12-28, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > google were from her press releases!) -- advocate that a machine which > contains software may be suitable for a patent if it satisfies all the > criteria. Nevertheless, the software component can't be patented, as
I don't understand the practical difference between a patent on a machine which contains a software component, and a patent on the software component of that machine. Why should you be able to get the one but not the other? Also doesn't this open a very big hole, in that people can now distribute the component separately from the machine and leave it up to the end user to assemble them? That's not legal anywhere else in patent law (contributory/indirect infringement), why should it be legal for software components? > declared in most countries patent law (only a few, like the US, are in > violation of TRIPS, at least according to my interpretation which sees > software delegated to Berne Convention, and Berne Convention delegates > it do Droit d'Auteur/Copyright). TRIPS says copyright protection must be available for software (the same kind as for literary works). But TRIPS does not say that copyright must be the *only* protection mechanism for software. For instance, I can claim trade secret protection for my source code. That's covered by TRIPS article 39. If article 10(1) were the sole means of protection, I couldn't invoke TRIPS article 39 for software. Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
