On Wednesday 02 June 2004 10:47 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2004 at 07:47:53PM +0800, Paolo Alexis D. Falcone wrote: > > Business method patents are quite abundant especially in the > > manufacturing segment. > > These aren't technically business method patents. Business method > patents are essentially, the way they're defined by the USPTO anyway, > patents on a particular way of doing business. This covers such things > as the mutual fund asset calculator patent and the infamous Amazon > one-click patent. Manufacturing processes are not ways of doing > business, they are means of making products. > > In other words, a business method patent is a thin disguise for a > software patent.
Afaik business method patents can cover their software implementations, though they aren't restricted to such. Unfortunately, even the most brain-dead ideas can even be patented, as long as it's marketable. Sigh... > > It can be arguably applied to software engineering per se, as the > > production of software can be construed as akin to the manufacturing > > process. > > How? Frankly, it would seem that the whole process of software > production is about as different from traditional manufacturing > processes as traditional manufacturing processes are different from the > process of making paintings or sculpture. Well, if the only qualification of manufacturing would be the output of a product, then software engineering may qualify. The other qualifications for patent application would apply in this matter - as patents can be awarded to innovations or inventions of use. However, restricting the view of software as solely a product of an engineering process misses out the other intrinsic natures of software that should disqualify it from being awarded with patents. On the other hand, I view software engineering similar to the generation of an art work - and the production of art work can also be construed as the output of an artistic process. In any case, I think that software, like artworks, is to be considered as a work of authorship that don't deserve patents at all. Copyright is already sufficient for protection of software authorship. > Anyone like Pamela Jones of Groklaw with an interest in looking into > these pressing legal issues that affect the practice of Software > Freedom? I think that there would be a time that we'd need a legal body that would look into these... so far our implementation of IPR is still in its infancy in the software realm. As for myself... I'd start hunting for an IPR lawyer to clear up on this regard. :D -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
