Den 29. aug. 2012 kl. 00:18 skrev steve harley: > on 2012-08-28 15:43 DagT wrote > >> You know the circuitry for making efficient car engines? It may easily be >> duplicated by software if it is not already. Some millions of dollars >> research just to give it away to the competitor. Why bother making clean >> engines? But we want them, so have make people do the research if they don´t >> get anything back? > > it seems to me that this example is about an alternative implementation of an > idea rather than a method; patents aren't intended to protect ideas
So now you find definitions that suit your principle rather than look at the problem. Why would you not allow a technical method for improving engines to be patentable? Note that the patent clams would have to be enabling so it would not simply be an idea. >> Another thing is, of course, that we in Norway have found lots of new oil >> resources the past few months. Mostly due to software developed by seismic >> companies where the sensors themselves are well known. Why would they make >> these investments of the next (mostly likely US) company could just use the >> same idea. Our economy is certainly dependent on partially software relates, >> very complex, inventions. > > if i were deciding how such a company should protect its work, i would treat > it as a trade secret, not as a patent You obviously haven´t been involved in cases where employs steal ideas and start competing firms. Believe me, it has been tried and didn´t work. >> No, your theory works for small software inventions, but those are not the >> complete picture. You need a better definition. > > i think your point is not disputing my definition, but rather returning to > the question of whether some or all software should be patentable No, I am simply looking for a definition. In fact, I do agree regarding small purely software inventions, but their complex relatives really need patents. That is why it is difficult. >> Another thing is, of course, that computer programs may be implemented as >> hardware... > > if you mean as firmware, or as a configuration of an integrated circuit, it's > still software if it is a description (loosely speaking) of inputs, outputs > and a logical sequence; and if you are talking about specific computer > programs, they are covered by copyright (copyright laws, at least in the US, > are also flawed, but i don't object in principle to software copyrights) > No, it is very possible to make a machine that perform logical sequences. Copyright is not effective as you loose any protection by simply rephrasing the code, not reinventing it. Anyway, there are some very strange things in the US copyright law. DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
