On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:32:44 +0100 Merijn de Weerd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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? There should be no problem on getting protection for a software component as long as that component is novel and non-obvious, and if patent protection is sought for that component per se. One of the considerations should be that a lot of algorithms have been published before patent protection was extended to software, and that anything that is part of an elementary CS curriculum should not be considered for patenting. This means, inter alia, that the patent terminology (which might have been suitable for the description of largely mechanical or electromechanical devices) should be revamped for software, and use approaches suitable for the description of software, like UML or a real programming language. The current situation is that programmers cannot understand software-related patents, meaning that patent examiners with a CS education could be hard-pressed to link a known algorithm to its description in patentese. > 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? Obviously, if a device is assembled from standard or non-patented parts, then an individual can assemble the device for personal use, based on the public description available as part of the patent grant, without the knowledge of the patent holder. It is also allowed to build another device out of these parts. If a software component is not patented per se, then its use in another device (not covered by the patent) is not subject to the patent. My aversion to patenting algorithms would (largely) disappear if the terminology would be adapted so that a programmer could read a patent and understand it. You don't want to have each line of code you write vetted by a lawyer to ensure you're not inadvertently infringing a patent. In addition, it should be almost impossible to be granted a patent on algorithms that has been published (as text or as part of a program or library) a year before the patent application is filed. There's something profoundly amoral about being granted a monopoly on something someone else has invented, and it should still be possible to publish software as speech (articles, books) and as Free software without the risk to see it appropriated by those who don't know software but know how to patent it. That being said, I am still doubtful that patenting is the best way to promote advances in CS - it has done very well when there was no protection at all, using the good old academic principles of sharing knowledge and building on the work of others (which after all are what the GPL tries to ensure for software). -- Stefaan A Eeckels -- He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave. (Sir William Drummond) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
