In addition to Rishab's fine points, I wanted to add that (at least the U.S. patent office) has begun to recognize this. Recently, in conjunction with N.Y. Law School, the office unveiled a program whereby folks can sign up and contribute prior art to relevant patents that are undergoing the application process [1]
Yes, yes, its still in beta, and yes, its still very limited, but it's a start. And to Shiv's post: "In fact people still keep secrets, despite patents. The only thing the patent does for you is to allow you to claim that you were the first to think of that particular idea. The only way you can do that is by saying what you have done. Patents are designed to protect your copyright and to create a public notice that you are the first one to register a particular bit of knowledge so that nobody else can claim that they thought of it before you did." Patents, unlike trade secrets, also force knowledge to the fore. While you're absolutely right that they create an exclusive monopoly for a term by "allowing you to protect your [property] rights," the term is short and definite, and once it's up, the information is free to the world. To say that you can accomplish the same goals under trade secret protection is a misnomer. Also, a huge pet peeve of mine: Patents = protect novel, useful and non-obvious inventions and methods of invention. Copyrights = protect the tangible expression of an original work of authorship, such as writings, musical compositions, paintings, sound recordings. You cannot obtain a patent to protect your copyright, or a copyright to protect your patent. Period. I admit, it comes across as linguistically pedantic to make those distinctions, but they're important. Part of the confusion about 'intellectual property' stems from, in my humble opinion, the fact that people mix and match terms (and accompanying grants of rights) either carelessly, or intentionally. Finally, to Cheeni's GPL observation: "P.S. It is possible to get recognition for your efforts without holding a patent as the GPL has proven in a somewhat limited context." I question that assertion. In the back of my mind, I remember Eben Moglen or perhaps, even Stallman himself, admitted that GPL, as a license, is nonetheless premised on a strong intellectual property regime. The beauty of GPL, is it allows people to contractually agree to play by a different set of rules when it comes to _enforcement_ of those rights. However, the underlying incentive basis to comply with GPL is the knowledge that the underlying rights holders have the ability to exact the full force of their intellectual property rights against GPL violators.[2] GPLv3 adds some interesting quirks to the concept of patent protection [3], in that it expressly concerns patents in a way that GPLv2 did not. What will be perhaps most interesting, is to see parties adopt the GPL model, but still secure patent protection (which unlike copyright, is not automatic) for security. Carey [1] http://dotank.nyls.edu/communitypatent/ [2] http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/50421.html. Additionally, the preamble of both GPL versions reads as follows: "Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it." [3] Specifically, Section 11 -- http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html On 7/30/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:02:49PM +0530, shiv sastry wrote: > > This is where the controversy about patenting old and well known stuff > comes > > in. > > there is no controversy - old and well known stuff can't be patented. it > gets patented only because overworked patent offices don't find the > references to prior stuff and don't know better than to believe applicant > claims that it is their new invention. patents thus granted are invalidated > when old stuff is drawn to the attention of the patent office. > > but this happens all the time especially with the US PTO which is > underfinanced and overworked; it is hardly limited to patents on turmeric. > > -rishab > > > >
