Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 15:31:06 -0500 From: David Kelly <dkelly@HiWAAY.net> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Software patents and FreeBSD Message-ID: <2BDDEF4D-C4F2-465F-B8C5-9841383466FB@HiWAAY.net> In-Reply-To: <200507091303.13823.bryan.maynard@reallm.com> References: <9A4DB033-3EF6-498F-8DF7-FD402C8E5D9C@tamu.edu> <B8E44159-B388-414A-8BE8-2E309B6AC8D5@tamu.edu> <C966A4C5-AF7E-4019-BB50-7BDBDA5AE372@HiWAAY.net> <200507091303.13823.bryan.maynard@reallm.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 9, 2005, at 8:03 AM, Bryan Maynard wrote: > If patents are applied to software, at what level of astraction do > we stop > allowing patents? As Kodak has, so elequently, show - you can > obtain a patent > for: "two machines communicating in an Object Oriented way". This > means that > it is not only possible, but plausible and adventageous to patent > the for > loop and other computational constructs. Within a year all > consrtucts of > computing could, very realisticly, be patented. An invention implemented in software has long been patentable. Your "Within a year all consrtucts of computing could, very realisticly, be patented" is already demonstrated as unrealistic. Just because something can be abused there is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Its pretty well documented that money can buy lawyers to make up == down, set Simpson, Jackson, and Scrushy free. The problem is not "software patents" but that fool patents are issued for existing art. Likely that is the case with the Kodak patent mentioned. It certainly is the case in "Method for Exercising a Cat." Another which comes to mind claimed a patent on numbering the frames for use as an index in a multimedia data file, as if film hasn't been marked with footage during manufacture the past 50 or 80 years. As I said earlier the wrongness is in considering software to be any different than any other implementation, just as in the past a 10" disk platter was considered fresh territory where 12" platter patents did not apply. > Before I close, I would like to return to my point on software > licensing. > > One question: Why are movies not patented? Why are "types" of > movies not > patented? I am not talking about patenting "action" movies or > "love" stories > (although that would be possible using the logic of those who > currently > support software patents). I am talking about the patenting of > documentable, > movie formulas: > > 1.a) Boy meets girl > 1.b) Boy falls in love with girl > 1.c) Boy losses girl > 1.d) Boy gets girl back > 1.e) Boy and girl live happily ever after The answer is very simple, "prior art." The screenwriter did not invent "boy meets girl." Or "boy meets boy." Or "boy meets dog." Or "boy meets alien." Copyright protection last much longer than patent and is easier to get. Especially when heavily borrowing from other's ideas. Yet when one borrows too much one must hire lawyers for defense. How much is too much? Well, the rich guys have to settle that with battling lawyers. Exactly the same as with patents. The wrongest solution is to deny a patent simply because it is implemented in software. The ideal solution would be to have better patent examiners, but "better" is anathema to government. USPO examiners are patent lawyers perpetually showing off to prospective employers at taxpayer's expense. -- David Kelly N4HHE, dkelly@HiWAAY.net ======================================================================== Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2BDDEF4D-C4F2-465F-B8C5-9841383466FB>