Protecting one's interest is preceisely the point of intellectual property. The reason why patents and copyrights are issued is to create value for the creator. Thus software piracry = theft since it compromises the rights of the creator.
As far as copyrights are concerned, maybe the main reason why there is a significant lag between the authors death and the expiry of the patent is to make sure that authors aren't killed-off :) ? Regarding Paolo's adding invention, he wouldn't be issued a patent for 1+1=2. No way, no how. As I said, concepts in themselves cannot be patented. If Paolo were to create a new addition method using some sort of technology, for instance a program that manipulates data in some way not conceived of before, and that would be of desirable value to others, then he would be in the right to receive a patent. The important distinction is that this is not a theoretical construct but a real world application that would need some sort of computer or similar device to be practical. It is not the knowledge that is patented but the method within the construct. Here's a real world case in point. The "Fast Fourier Transform" is a mathematical model which was used by the JPEG to create a compression algorithm for image data. The mathematical model cannot in itself be patented but its application to image compression contained within an application could be. Someone else using this model could create a completely new algorithm and application which could also be patented. Judges are lawyers too :) Software for the common good -- no one is arguing against this. If you wish to donate your rights to an invention for the public good then congratulations. Patents are not passive, you have to apply for them and by not doing so, you are giving up your right to establish this as your property. All patents become pulic knowledge once the patent is granted. You can no longer hide it since it resides in the patent office. You may get a copy of each and every patent registered with instructions to make all sorts of things. You will have to pay a license to the inventor though if you were to use his patent to manufacture a product for sale. If you don't know they exist, that's your own problem for not investigating. The rest of your arguments tell me that you don't understand the meaning of the world "property." You can't take your land with you to the grave either but you have a right to eject undesirable tenants while you are alive :0 As for the Golden Rule, property protection is not selfishness. What would be selfish would be to use someones idea and make money off it without rewarding him. Property is primarily about money. You are not free to exploit someone else's labour without just compensation. This is the essence of IP. No one is stopping you from donating your creation to the general public. This is what the FSF does with the GPL. But by their own rules, you are not allowed to use this without sharing the source code as well. I cannot make a commercial product out of their source code without including it this. Essentially, this is the price they require from your to ensure that the code is free. But to require everyone to behave in this manner is unjust and counter productive. Less innovation will occur if the inventor is forced to give his creation away for free. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Zak B. Elep) To: Philippine Linux Users' Group Mailing List <plug@lists.q-linux.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:07:55 +0800 Subject: [plug] Re: Linux trends in the Philippines "Ricky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think you misunderstand the issue. Patentâs only exist if you apply > for them and can make a case with the Official body granting the patent > that the innovation you are applying for has a unique and original > application. Software and other inventions may make use of previously > existing knowledge, even patented knowledge, and still be an original > and unique application (but you would still owe a licence fee to another > patent if you used it in a commercial product that exploits your own > patent.) I think you're more interested in protecting your interests with regard to the authorship of your innovation. I guess there's nothing wrong with that, granted you can take your authorship with you when you're dead. > Concepts do not get patented in and of themselves. This is a point which > people are often confused. It is concept plus application that gets > patented. Thus Edison could get a patent for converting electrical > energy into visible light in the specific instance of the incandescent > lamp. But he could not patent the concept in itself since there would be > nothing for the patent clerk to decide on. The LZW algorithm applied > specifically to the manner in which data is stored in a computer memory > or hard drive. The algorithm behind could not be without having the > reference to the manner in which data is organized inside > computers. Einstein couldnât patent e=mc2 but the Atomic bomb could have > been if it were developed as a commercial application rather than as a > means to kill innocent civilians effortlessly. If that were so, consider again the last example on `1+1=2': suppose Paolo patents that statement, so he has the concept (of adding units to make a double) as well as the application of that concept (that is, using a mathematical device, arithmetic,) to express that concept. Let's say further, that I too formulated a similar statement, `(+ 1 1)'. Would I still be eligible for applying a patent? Considering the logic, no, I wouldn't be able to patent this. However, notice that this is a different statement, yet expressing the same truth. The former uses classical mathematical notation: the other uses Lisp. And yet they state the same basic truth, concept plus application. Therefore, would the former's patent still hold, given (a) that this is no unique innovation, and (b) that there is no means to validate whether this innovation had been nonexistent (and therefore invalid to patent) before? Probably not. (Note that there are caveats with this example, though I'm too lazy to expound on another...) I still could, however, copyright (+1 1), probably under the GPL. :) > There are many specific instances where you could argue the merits on > whether a patent could exist in particular circumstances. Note the > attempts currently underway to claim patent rights on the JPG > compression algorithm. This is one for the lawyers to decide but it does > not invalidate the concept that patents can and should be applied for in > software that deserves to be patented. Not for the lawyers, for the judges. > Software is not a mere aggregation of previously existing > algorithms. Adobe Distiller makes use of the âFast Fourier Transformâ, > and essential part of the JPG compression algorithm. And yet, it makes a > unique application of this knowledge when embedding image data into a > PDF file. Adobe applied for and owns patents for Distiller and the PDF > format itself primarily because they perceived a need for this feature > and created a unique feature compelling enough to the patent granting > authority that the general public would benefit by having this knowledge > made available to the world rather than being locked away. So in > exchange for sharing this knowledge, Adobe agreed to make this public in > exchange for a time limited franchise to exploit this. Given Adobe could afford so, yes. Besides, it is a business, anyway. However, please do think about the software made `just for fun' and `for the common good'. Most of these were acts motivated by a sincere desire to help other people, not exclusively to make money out of it. > People often miss this point. Patents make knowledge freely available by > granting the inventor a temporary franchise over the invention. The > Pythagoreans famously kept their knowledge secret in order to increase > their bargaining position as mathematicians and philosophers (who got > paid to advice monarchs.) Pythagoreans alive today would have simply > patented their knoledge and sold the license to any bidder willing to > pay the fee. The benefit, of course is the knowledge became free for > exploitation by the public sooner than would otherwise have happened. An methinks they still exist today in the guise of Alaskans na umaalaska sa maliliit (no offense meant to the _real_ Alaskans though). And I think you mean copyrights, since patent as you so expound grant only the right to franchise by the author: the author (or even the patent giver) would still have the option whether to make his invention public or not. Take for example the many patents there in the US Patent Office that most people today don't even know *do* exist. > The other missed point I note is the concept of software code being > copyrighted. This is a completely bogus concept. You can copyright a > book or other publishing medium containing code. You can copyright > executable files in the same sense that you could copyright waveforms on > a vinyl disk. But you cannot copyright the code itself much the same as > you cannot copyright the notes that make up a song. You can however > copyright a music sheet wherein the notes are printed. I think you meant patents. > Source code represents a design and makes no sense in and off itself > without a surrounding reference (a book in which it is contained or a > method or device for compiling and creating executable versions of it.) > Thus code in itself should be patented, not copyrighted. By the same > token, you can patent a design for a machine and submit drawings for > this when applying for the patent. You could then incorporate these > drawings into a book and have the book copyrighted. But the patent for > the device remains separate from the copyright for the book in which the > device is published. So two independently written programs using the same concept and differing in only the expression of that concept (i.e., the language used) merits two different patents, huh? So where's the concept + application thing, much more the unique innovation/design concept? > In a very real sense, patents are less restrictive than copyrights and > serve the public benefit more. As long as you are willing to pay a > licence, you can immediately create a product out of an invention and > after a few years, you no longer have to renew your licence. With a > copyright, you have to wait for 75 years (under current US law, 50 years > in most countries) after the creator passes away to avoid paying a > licence. Which is reasonable. Anyway, we don't feel much the effect of paying licenses in copyrights since methinks this included in the valuation of the product aforementioned. What is unreasonable is the manifestation of selfishness in patents that cause many not to help their neighbor, defying the Golden Rule. > I truly hope this calarifies the issue for some of you out there. Iâve > been following this argument for a long time now. It initially came up > in the mid eighties when the issue of software copyrights came up. Up to > then, it was assumed that patents could take care of any IP rights > issues on software. Many arguments went back and forth (including many > of the ones Iâve been reading in this forum) and in the end, it was > decided that published code could be copyrighted. There was never any > real issue of patents until fairly recently since it was always assumed > that this was the only natural means for dealing with this. And I think still is, unless you revise the patent device. Somehow, I got the feeling MS is feeling this too, given their recent CfR. > As it turns out, some people got hold of the same argument that others > had been using against patents for drugs and thought it would be > pretty neat to apply these to software as well, thus the current drive > agains software patents. So you're implying that people who are for the liberation of drug research be the same ones against the shacking of software? Probably... > Believe me when I say that it will never happen that software will be > free from patents. Itâs against the public benefit and it takes too much > effort to protect invention privately when the knowledge will leak out > anyway. Patents allow commercial applications to surface sooner rather > than later and we should be fighting to keep it that way. That's why I still tend to think the nature of IP is quite silly. I mean, intellectual or not, can you still bring that to your resting place? I do believe, however, that instead of patents to works you made, you'll only bring a PITA and a migraine when you're done at this stopover. -- ZAK B. ELEP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- <http://zakame.spunge.org> 1024D/FA53851D 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D -- Running Debian GNU+Linux testing/unstable. GnuPG signed mail preferred. bably... > Believe me when I say that it will never happen that software will be > free from patents. Itâs against the public benefit and it takes too much > effort to protect invention privately when the knowledge will leak out > anyway. Patents allow commercial applications to surface sooner rather > than later and we should be fighting to keep it that way. That's why I still tend to think the nature of IP is quite silly. I mean, intellectual or not, can you still bring that to your resting place? I do believe, however, that instead of patents to works you made, you'll only bring a PITA and a migraine when you're done at this stopover. -- ZAK B. ELEP -- 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
