Byron,

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:20:12 -0500, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> Software patents are a very sticky area because they are almost always the
> tangible expression of an idea, which originally patents prohibited. One
> cannot patent the idea of a car, one can patent a specific car. But in software
> if one patents a program, then the next developer can simply write another
> program that does the same job. So software patents try to grab as much
> infospace as it can i.e. (no one can implement any concept of a One Click
> Shopping site because Amazon holds the patent).

This is the case only in the USA.  In Britain and Europe, for example, you cannot patent an idea, or a
technique, or a business process or practice (these have been excluded from English patents as long as they
have existed) and more recently computer software and genes have been added to the "specifically-excluded"
list.  I don't know how patent / copyright are resolved in the USA - if someone copies something that is
patented and copyright, which legislation do you use to challenge them?

Copyright is different though - anything written is automatically copyright, and you don't have to do anything
to establish copyright, although putting the little "c in a circle" is a way to remind people of the fact.

The original idea of patents was to allow inventions to be publicised, with the "payback" being that they were
protected from copying for a while.  It wasn't specifically to allow the inventor to make money, but to get
the inventions out into the World in a way that the inventor didn't lose out.  But the inventor must allow
people to use the invention for a reasonable fee, and that includes them creating better versions.  If you
refuse to licence a patented invention, the patent is void.

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body