Wow! Too many things to respond to in detail, and e-mail fora just aren't the most favorable tool. I probably won't continue the debate beyond this brief reply.
Yes, as you and David point out, the constitution establishes patent and copyright to foster progress - the monopoly reward is just a means. But that IS how it works. To foster progress, the purpose of the law itself is to establish a limited monopoly for creators. I think taxes on media are a concept that has failed (and would in any event also require a government inventor subsidy program to disperse the money collected). Direct government subsidies would put the bureaucrats in charge of deciding which inventions should be monetarily rewarded. (The PTO does NOT do that today - a patent is not a license to make money; it is a license to prevent others from using your invention without paying you - subtle but very critical market-driven difference.) Why should discoveries in math be excluded? Good question. I don't know. I don't claim the system is perfect as is. I'm a programmer, not a mathematician. To me, a program seems a lot more like a "machine" of sorts than a formula does. Yes, my patent app includes both the software and the business method that uses it. They go hand in hand in my invention, IMHO, and they go hand in hand in that the people who are opposed to SW patents I think are also generally opposed to business method patents. I think (I don't know) that the "independent invention" defense has been excluded historically because (1) it's hard to figure out if you REALLY invented it independently or if you were subtly inspired by references to the original invention and (2) the point (okay, the method) is to grant a financial monopoly to the original inventor. Let me illustrate point (1). I said in my first note that I was an innocent victim of the LZW patent. Here is what happened. I was looking for a compression scheme to add to my file transfer product. I read an article in Byte magazine (AFAIR) about LZW that made no reference to any patent and described LZW as "a tool that should be in every programmer's bag of tricks" (AFAIR). I implemented by using Byte's (released to the public domain) Intel assembler code as a starting point for my PC code, and by paraphrasing the Intel assembler into 370 assembler for the mainframe. I was subsequently stunned to learn that we were infringing a family of Unisys patents. Should the independent invention defense apply to me? I could not agree with you more on the term of copyrights. Disney has been the big mover in extending copyright terms. Far from encouraging progress and innovation, the ever-longer copyright terms have enabled Disney to just ride the mouse off into the sunset. (And I'm not a Disney basher - I have a very good friend who works there and loves it.) Why can you copyright something without publishing it? Don't know. It used to not be that way (basically) in the US, but we brought our copyright laws into conformance with the international norms (Berne convention) and now you own the copyright to your work the instant you "fix it in a tangible medium." Singing your song or dancing your dance doesn't count, but once you write it down, you own it, whether you publish it or not. Thanks for your reasoned arguments, Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Harminc Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Patent #6886160 Charles Mills wrote: > At the risk of getting flamed, I would like to respectfully > disagree with the apparent majority opinion on this list that > all software patents are bad, that the fact that software can > be patented is a bad thing. I would like to argue that the > PROCESS and the details, not the entire concept, are flawed. This very argument is pretty much the core of the ongoing discussions in fora worldwide. > Why does IP protection (patent, copyright, TM, and trade > secrets) exist? It is so that people can be rewarded for > their creativity. On this point you are quite wrong. IP protection exists (and constitutionally so, in the USA) "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts". That it "[secures] for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective rights and discoveries" is a side effect or necessary implementation detail, and not the reason for its existence. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
