> -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Howard Brazee > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: IBM sues maker of Intel-based Mainframe clones > > On 12 Dec 2006 12:40:27 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffrey D. > Smith) wrote: > > >I patented a data compression process, and I saw how the sausage was made > >at the patent office. For many reasons, I think patenting software is a > >very bad idea. I think copyright protections are stronger and easier to > >enforce. Software patents are mostly for Public Relations and marketing. > > Do you think it is a bad idea for companies to patent their software? > As opposed to, say, trade secrets? > > Arguments for this are of interest to software developers. > > Or do you think the concept of patents which has been very good in the > past needs re-thinking. I can see quite a few arguments that its > useful cycle is nearing its end. (We can't patent recipes, but > there's a thriving recipe business) (Many times patents are used not > to innovate these days, but to stop competition) > > This discussion is of great interest to all - but not so much in this > forum. /snip/
Software patents are processed by the same folks who review electronic circuitry patents. If a process is distilled down to an electronic circuit device, then that is a physical *implementation* which I think, IMHO, should be eligible for patent consideration. OTOH, software is a written list of directions to be obeyed by a hardware device in the course of receiving input data, processing that data, then producing output data. If the directions are changed, then the output is changed, but the hardware remains unchanged. This is the fundamental difference between hardware and software implementations of data processing algorithms. I think the difference is so significant that software patents should not exist. Software should be protected by copyright. Trade secrets are exactly what the name says. It's a secret, so it's not published anywhere. Patents, OTOH, are by definition published to provide constructive notice to the world. A patent applies to a implementation of a *process*, not to an idea. I believe that software is a written representation of an idea and not a process. It is the computer device that actually performs the process as directed by the software. I think extending the concept of "implementation" beyond physical hardware to the software was a mistake. I can understand and accept the notion of patenting a new physical device for making doughnuts. I won't accept the notion of patenting the doughnut recipe(s) that is used by the new device. The recipe may be copyrighted, but not patented IMHO. The recipe is the set of directions (like software) for making doughnuts with that particular doughnut-making device. Translating the recipe to operate with a different doughtnut-making device may violate the copyright, but it certainly doesn't make sense to claim patent infringement. Jeffrey D. Smith Principal Product Architect Farsight Systems Corporation 700 KEN PRATT BLVD. #204-159 LONGMONT, CO 80501-6452 303-774-9381 direct 303-484-6170 FAX http://www.farsight-systems.com/ comments are invited on my encryption project ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
