Joel, How much original code is floating around, I see a lot of cloning of code, why reinvent the wheel. So how can one look at this ?
Scott ford www.identityforge.com Tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I'll understand. - Chinese Proverb On Jan 13, 2013, at 2:37 PM, "Joel C. Ewing" <[email protected]> wrote: > #1 is why the current U.S. law extending patents to "business methods" is so > questionable, as those holding those patents seem wont to lay claim to the > algorithms underlying those methods, not to a specific physical > implementation for that algorithm. An algorithm is more like a creative > expression than like a physical invention, and as such should be treated > differently than a physical invention, The only requirement for creation of > an algorithm is the equivalent of pencil and paper and a mind, which both > increases the possibility of concurrent, independent invention and > complicates the depth of search required to rule out prior art. > JC Ewing > > On 01/12/2013 12:30 PM, Charles Mills wrote: >> Simply, No. For at least three reasons. >> >> 1. Copyright and inventions are different domains. Copyright protects a >> particular creative expression -- think of sonnets. Inventions are ways of >> doing things. Think cotton gin. They are different domains. >> >> 2. Only the inventor can patent something. One cannot read about something >> nifty and run out and patent it; one has to BE the inventor. >> >> 3. "Prior art" precludes obtaining patents (or, if push comes to shove, are >> a defense against the enforcement of a patent that turns out after issuance >> to be invalid because of prior art). Even if I wake up this morning and >> innocently "invent" something, if it turns out that you wrote a paper about >> it a couple of years ago then I am precluded from obtaining (or the courts >> would invalidate the patent and preclude me from enforcing) a patent on my >> invention (even if I never read your paper). >> >> I think this is pretty much what John is saying. I don't see how what John >> wrote could be interpreted as saying "inventing a software piece, >> copyrighting it ..., a third party can patent the invention ..." What John >> says is the opposite: "the putative 'invention', being already in the public >> domain, is non-novel and thus not patentable." >> >> BTW, copyright does not imply "public domain." >> >> 1. You mean "publically accessible." "Copyrighted and "public domain" are >> essentially antonyms. >> >> 2. See my other note on copyright. No registration (public disclosure) is >> necessary at all. >> >> 3. You can register a copyright with key elements redacted for trade secrecy >> reasons. >> >> Charles >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Graham Hobbs >> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:42 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: OT: IBM #1 in number of patents for 2012. It's 20th year in a >> row to do so. >> >> John, >> Could one conclude then, that inventing a software piece, copyrighting it >> (thus on a Govt database thus a public domain), a third party can patent the >> invention and you could end up paying the third party to use your own >> software? >> I read your comments closely and the above cannot happen!+ ..? >> Graham >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Gilmore" <[email protected]> >> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:49 PM >> Subject: Re: OT: IBM #1 in number of patents for 2012. It's 20th year in a >> row to do so. >> >> >>> Graham, >>> >>> "Prior art" is a lawyer's term, not mine. If, say, I published a >>> paper in 1977 describing a scheme for extracting the square root of a >>> non-negative integer by successive subtraction, using the fact that >>> n^2 is the sum of the first n odd integers, i.e., >>> >>> 2^2 = 4 = 1 + 3 >>> 3^2 = 9 = 1 + 3 + 5 >>> 4^2 = 16 = 1+ 3 + 5 + 7 >>> 5^2 = 25 = 1 + 3 + 5 + 7 + 9 >>> . . . >>> >>> a later attempt to patent such a scheme would [almopst certainly] >>> fail. This relation is due to Fr Marin Mersenne (1588-1648), but >>> while no mathematical relation is itself patentable a device based >>> upon it, which might otherwise be patentable, would not be if my paper >>> describing such a device were known to the relevant Patent Office. >>> >>> Thus, while my paper might well be copyrighted (most published papers >>> are), that is not the point; what is crucial is that the putative ' >>> invention', being already in the public domain, is non-novel and thus >>> not patentable. >> > > > -- > Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
