on 2012-08-28 23:25 DagT wrote
Den 29. aug. 2012 kl. 00:18 skrev steve harley:
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.
from a quick look at the problem you presented, it seemed you were describing
ideas, not methods; with your clarification i'm not sure i can imagine well
enough a method that translates to software in the way you describe; it sounds
like it would have to be a new method to be implemented in software, though it
may indeed using the same _idea_
but i acknowledge i am just doing a quick analysis, and i'm an amateur with an
informed opinion, not a researcher in intellectual property issues; your
counterexamples are certainly challenging
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.
they are not perfect, i agree, but they aren't useless either; i've signed many
non-disclosures and obeyed them; i've even turned down full-time jobs when an
overly broad non-compete meant i'd have to screw a part-time client in the same
industry; it is perhaps an inherent problem with the free market concept that
ideas flow more freely than capital, and any "fix" will be ugly
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.
i think it boils down to your desire for, as you stated, a "fair" definition; i
think the problem on your side is one of defining what you mean by fair — if
you can do that, you might have your answer (and the fact that it has to meet
your definition of fair is why you cannot accept others' definitions); from my
perspective it is much simpler because i think it's "fair enough" to simply
disallow any software patent
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.
yes it is, but i was trying to parse your proposition into something that made
sense; i'd be interested if you can describe a software patent that can be
meaningfully implemented in a machine; and you can copyright the sequence, and
patent the machine, but you can't patent the sequence
Copyright is not effective as you loose any protection by simply rephrasing the
code, not reinventing it.
it is effective enough from my point of view (too effective in some ways, e.g.
shrink-wrap licenses with arcane restrictions)
Anyway, there are some very strange things in the US copyright law.
i totally agree
and i appreciate your perspective — it sounds as if you work in areas where
software patents are effective (if still imperfect) incentives, whereas i,
though i am a software developer, am mainly considering impacts on the
evolution of software as a cultural phenomenon; my position is that on balance
the patent system works against the ideal of "incentives for innovation" in the
area of software; i think the software market may naturally have enough
incentives, and if it doesn't, some system other than patents may better solve
the problem
--
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.
