Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:31:07 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr> Cc: Chip Morton <tech_info@threespace.com>, FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Abuses of the BSD license? Message-ID: <3CAF853B.CBF82341@mindspring.com> References: <200204051922.06556@silver.dt1.binity.net> <3CAE7037.801FB15F@optusnet.com.au> <3CAEA028.186ED53E@optusnet.com.au> <3CAED90B.F4B7905@mindspring.com> <3CAEFFAA.91525BB3@optusnet.com.au> <4.3.2.7.2.20020406124622.019bfdc8@threespace.com> <20020406212101.A13194@lpt.ens.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > Chip Morton said on Apr 6, 2002 at 12:50:41: > > In other words, if you create some great unlicensed code and leave a > > printout lying on the table at McDonald's, what law am I breaking by > > scooping up the printout and making billions with your creation? I thought > > this was exactly why most people guard as-yet-uncopyrighted works so > > fiercely. > > Copyright protection is automatic; the original author doesn't have to > do anything special except prove his authorship. So you have no > rights to that code unless he gives you some, via a licence. You can > still use his *ideas* and make billions, ideas can't be copyrighted; > they can be patented but that is not automatic. Registration of Copyright grants you additional protections under U.S. law. It is conceivable that someone would be careful, if they were desirous of those protections. In addition, unpatented materials which are disclosed are treated differently, based on jurisdiction. In the U.S., disclosure of an idea starts a one year clock on the filing for a patent on the idea. In most other countries, disclosure makes it inelegible for patent. For software, this is really not the primary issue, since most other countries do not recognize software as being subject to process patent protection. However... There is a concept called a "submerged patent". Prior to recent revisions in patent law, it was possible to file for a patent, but not execute on it for any amount of time. This permitted the inventor to hold onto a patent until someone found a commercial use for it, then execute it, and demand royalties or otherwise to be compensated for the use of the patent. Thus the inventor could be assured to maximize their potential revenue from the patent by starting the protection clock, but not starting the expiration clock until the patent was commericalized. Protection was thus measured from date of issue, rather from date of filing. THis was changed recently to be 20 years from date of filing, rather than 17 from date of issue, in an attempt to prevent submerged patents (disclosure protection was intended to promote progress in the arts and sciences; this doesn't work as well in the face of submerged patents). But it's still possible to get the effect of a "submerged patent", by permitting someone else to patent later than you, and take the time between when you could have filed and they did file, as the submersion period. THis works because you can take someone's patent away from them, if you can demonstrate prior art. And if it was not disclosed prior to the patent, then you never started the one year (U.S.) disclosure-to-patent-application clock. So it's reasonable in some circumstances to be paranoid about disclosure, even though you already have copyright protection. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CAF853B.CBF82341>