On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 07:40:47 +0800, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Patents and copyrights are essentially the same in that they allow > someone who created something a right to profit from it before anyone > else does. The only difference between the two lies in what is being > patented or copyrighted. An artistic work (by this I mean literary or > musical) that is published or recorded using some means is copyrighted. > Inventive work on the other hand is patented when specific techniques > borne out of a concept is applied to the creation of some product or > process. Thus, although both are creative works, it is the subject > matter being protected that determines whether a copyright or patent > should apply. > > In the case of software, the technique (which is represented by the > source code) used to compress an image, for example, would be patented. > If the code were published, that published work would fall under a > copyright. In both cases, it is the specific application of an idea into > something tangible that is patented or copyrighted, not the idea or > concept.
It doesn't work that way. Patents != Copyrights. Even lawyers would confirm this. Even the purpose of copyrights and patents are being misconstrued as being the same when in fact it's worlds apart. Copyrights are designed to protect authors from getting their writings bootlegged and unduly claimed by other people. For writings to be copyrighted, it must be original. Patents on the other hand were designed to protect processes, machines, or products born of manufacturing or composition (read: tangible product) that would have to be novel and non-obvious. It must not have been part of prior art or an obvious variation of prior art. Software cannot qualify for patents given these conditions. Patenting software would essentially lock the techniques (which are merely aggregation of algorithms translated into language). This is different from physically inventing something or doing something for ornamental purposes - both which patents can protect, as real products were produced in the process. > Software patents, I believe, are necessary. Whether or not it will > stifle any progress in the industry will always be subject to debate. In > any case, software is created work. It did not just miraculously appear > out of thin air. A person creating something has the right of an owner > and is therefore entitled to the same kind of protection a state gives > to all persons who own property. It is really up to them to decide > whether or not the rest of us benefit from their work by either keeping > it to themselves or by letting the whole world know about it. It does take a lot of time and effort to generate software (I should now, I am in the same business). While it does not miraculously appear out of thin air, it doesn't qualify to be novel as it doesn't bring any new tangible thing to the world - but merely an aggregate expression of human ideas yet still within the intellectual realm. Software is just algorithms aggregated into another language (there are a lot of ways to combine certain algorithms, much more languages to express the aggregation). It still remains as one thing though - an expression of thought, an idea. For this case, copyright is more appropriate. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List plug@lists.q-linux.com (#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
