a computer program is not a patentable invention

In article <l0xpro.40a@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl 
says...
> In article <81uukiFepfU1@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie  <5V@2.5A> wrote:
> >
> >This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
> >Tuesday, 06 April 2010
> >
> >========================
> >
> >Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
> >Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions
> >
> >Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
> >software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.
> 
> It is pretty .......... to post news about a bill on an international
> forum without even mentionning the country it is in.
> 
> <SNIP>

Did I miss something here, or did you?

I mean "Thumbs down for software patents in NZ" is pretty obvious to me.

Albert van der Horst wrote:
> In article <81uukiFepfU1@mid.individual.net>, Don McKenzie  <5V@2.5A> wrote:
>> This little gem comes from NZ via Computerworld.
>> Tuesday, 06 April 2010
>>
>> ========================
>>
>> Thumbs down for software patents in NZ
>> Commerce Select Committee tips its hat to open source submissions
>>
>> Open source software champions have been influential in excluding
>> software from the scope of patents in the new Patents Bill.
> 
> It is pretty .......... to post news about a bill on an international
> forum without even mentionning the country it is in.
> 
> <SNIP>

Sorry, I should have explained in full detail. I'll try and do better in 
future. I promise.
:-)

NZ = New Zealand

Other common abbreviations are:
US = United States
USA = United States of America


Cheers Don...



-- 
Don McKenzie

Site Map:            http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page:     http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam:   http://www.dontronics.com/spam

These products will reduce in price by 5% every month:
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/minus-5-every-month.html

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

><snip>
>To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright
>sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software.
>I know about quite a few software patents but I know of very
>few that generated enough revenue to pay for the costs of
>protecting and enforcing the patent. I only know of two that
>actually made real money.
>
>Copyrights are a different matter. There are lots of precedents
>and the courts know how to handles cases of rewritten
>to circumvent as well as assign monetary awards. Depending
>on country the copyright protection can last a long time to a
>very long time.
>
>There are several current very interesting open cases where
>copyrights and not patents may affect software. The most
>interesting one that I currently know about is a standard
>40+ year old reference book of  polynomial constants.
>
>Dropping software patents may result in software
>protection with teeth.
>
>Regards,
>
>Walter Banks

Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of
yours, do they?  Does Europe permit software patents on the
same scope as the US?  If not, then wouldn't their experience
already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping
software patents?"  I don't know, but it seems that there is
information in the rest of the world to help shed light in
North America.

Jon

Jon Kirwan wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright
> >sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software.
> >I know about quite a few software patents but I know of very
> >few that generated enough revenue to pay for the costs of
> >protecting and enforcing the patent. I only know of two that
> >actually made real money.
> >
> >Copyrights are a different matter. There are lots of precedents
> >and the courts know how to handles cases of rewritten
> >to circumvent as well as assign monetary awards. Depending
> >on country the copyright protection can last a long time to a
> >very long time.
> >
> >There are several current very interesting open cases where
> >copyrights and not patents may affect software. The most
> >interesting one that I currently know about is a standard
> >40+ year old reference book of  polynomial constants.
> >
> >Dropping software patents may result in software
> >protection with teeth.
>
>
> Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of
> yours, do they?  Does Europe permit software patents on the
> same scope as the US?  If not, then wouldn't their experience
> already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping
> software patents?"  I don't know, but it seems that there is
> information in the rest of the world to help shed light in
> North America.

A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the
end of some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the
public domain. Those that cheer the dropping of software
patents may find that copyrights are far more protective of
creative work.

NZ may have seen software patents as having limited
real value for the software creator. It took a while for the
music industry to sort out creative protection. Time will
tell if apple iPad stores can use the same model.

Copyrights are inexpensive and easy to register and have
actually become the defacto protection.

It is also something that open source folks need to look at
as well. There are some open source copyright holders
with rights that many authors may not have believed they
gave up.

Regards,


w..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 16:21:00 -0400, Walter Banks
>> <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><snip>
>> >To use both the book analogy in both the patent and copyright
>> >sense. The result may be a far stronger protection for software.
>> >I know about quite a few software patents but I know of very
>> >few that generated enough revenue to pay for the costs of
>> >protecting and enforcing the patent. I only know of two that
>> >actually made real money.
>> >
>> >Copyrights are a different matter. There are lots of precedents
>> >and the courts know how to handles cases of rewritten
>> >to circumvent as well as assign monetary awards. Depending
>> >on country the copyright protection can last a long time to a
>> >very long time.
>> >
>> >There are several current very interesting open cases where
>> >copyrights and not patents may affect software. The most
>> >interesting one that I currently know about is a standard
>> >40+ year old reference book of  polynomial constants.
>> >
>> >Dropping software patents may result in software
>> >protection with teeth.
>>
>>
>> Walter, one doesn't need to guess about this last comment of
>> yours, do they?  Does Europe permit software patents on the
>> same scope as the US?  If not, then wouldn't their experience
>> already help inform us about what might happen with "dropping
>> software patents?"  I don't know, but it seems that there is
>> information in the rest of the world to help shed light in
>> North America.
>
>A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the
>end of some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the
>public domain. Those that cheer the dropping of software
>patents may find that copyrights are far more protective of
>creative work.

I think I took your point on this, already.

I was asking about any specific knowledge or experience you
might have (as I believe your knowledge here will be far
broader than most) about what actual circumstances might tell
us, today -- regarding the situation where software patents
are generally not used (or allowed.)

It seems to me that we could learn from object lessons found
in real life, rather than speculating, and that you might
have some examples to draw from that informed your stance
above.  If not, that's a fine answer.  That would only mean I
have nothing else to go on.

Certainly, prior to much before 1980 in the US, software
patents didn't exist and so their introduction must have also
led to a lot of speculation, much wrong but some perhaps
right, about what the court decisions then would mean. Today,
we have a lot more information to apply and over a world wide
system, so I'm thinking we aren't in the same situation of
speculation that we were in 30 years ago.

The rest below also doesn't address this, so I am not sure
how to add to that.  Best to leave it, for now.

Jon




>NZ may have seen software patents as having limited
>real value for the software creator. It took a while for the
>music industry to sort out creative protection. Time will
>tell if apple iPad stores can use the same model.
>
>Copyrights are inexpensive and easy to register and have
>actually become the defacto protection.
>
>It is also something that open source folks need to look at
>as well. There are some open source copyright holders
>with rights that many authors may not have believed they
>gave up.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>w..

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:


> A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the end of
> some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the public domain.
> Those that cheer the dropping of software patents may find that
> copyrights are far more protective of creative work.

If someone copyrights a piece of code which uses variable A,B & C and I 
copy that code, but change to variable X, Y & Z and re-order the 
unimportant steps, then how does copyright stop that?

Jon Kirwan wrote:

> I was asking about any specific knowledge or experience you
> might have (as I believe your knowledge here will be far
> broader than most) about what actual circumstances might tell
> us, today -- regarding the situation where software patents
> are generally not used (or allowed.)

Two examples, both I have mentioned. Music industry and
book publications both covered by copyright. Photography
copyrights have a large body of law related to cloning and
copyright ownership.

These are all cases where copyrights are used for IP
protection.

> It seems to me that we could learn from object lessons found
> in real life, rather than speculating, and that you might
> have some examples to draw from that informed your stance
> above.  If not, that's a fine answer.  That would only mean I
> have nothing else to go on.
>
> Certainly, prior to much before 1980 in the US, software
> patents didn't exist and so their introduction must have also
> led to a lot of speculation, much wrong but some perhaps
> right, about what the court decisions then would mean. Today,
> we have a lot more information to apply and over a world wide
> system, so I'm thinking we aren't in the same situation of
> speculation that we were in 30 years ago.

The earliest software patents (late 60's early 70's)  required
that a hardware implementation be part of the patent.

Patents especially software patents have one use that
copyrights do not and that is to put an idea into the public
domain in such a way and to prevent it from being owned
and controlled by anyone else.

I have done this twice specifically for that reason. In
both cases went as far as a patent disclosure and
never following through so the disclosure itself would be
a matter of public record. (BYTE paper bytes and the
physics behind touch sensitive switches) Both were done
in the 70's and both would have long expired.

In both cases that I know of software patents paying
well they were pursued by companies that bought patents
just before they would expire and then used very
aggressive approaches to collect royalties (close to extortion).
One of these was related to scanning of LCD displays
and the other was an obscure barcode patent. The rules
have changed now to require patent owners to have
a competitive interest in the technology.

Regards,


w..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com






--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

terryc wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 19:34:55 -0400, Walter Banks wrote:
>
> > A patent is a commercial document with a limited life. At the end of
> > some exclusive rights the originator puts the idea in the public domain.
> > Those that cheer the dropping of software patents may find that
> > copyrights are far more protective of creative work.
>
> If someone copyrights a piece of code which uses variable A,B & C and I
> copy that code, but change to variable X, Y & Z and re-order the
> unimportant steps, then how does copyright stop that?

In the same way that the plot line of a book is part of a copyright and
composition of a photograph.

The test is a lot more rigorous than a file compare. The legal precedents
for copyrights are mostly in the arts. Talk to a lawyer about the
intricacies of copyright sometime. Fascinating stuff.

Early boot ROM's in PC's were re-compiled clones of the original
IBM PC boot ROM's with functions re-ordered. Tracing execution flow
from the reset vector in the ROM's identified the copyright. US
customs had automated tools to check imports for copyright
violations at the time.

Regards,


Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com





--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 23:08:23 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> I was asking about any specific knowledge or experience you
>> might have (as I believe your knowledge here will be far
>> broader than most) about what actual circumstances might tell
>> us, today -- regarding the situation where software patents
>> are generally not used (or allowed.)
>
>Two examples, both I have mentioned. Music industry and
>book publications both covered by copyright. Photography
>copyrights have a large body of law related to cloning and
>copyright ownership.
>
>These are all cases where copyrights are used for IP
>protection.

I wasn't thinking so much about analogy to other business
areas _within_ the North American continent, but to the same
business areas outside of it.  Which is why I asked though
you had provided such examples.

I'll stop asking, now.

>> It seems to me that we could learn from object lessons found
>> in real life, rather than speculating, and that you might
>> have some examples to draw from that informed your stance
>> above.  If not, that's a fine answer.  That would only mean I
>> have nothing else to go on.
>>
>> Certainly, prior to much before 1980 in the US, software
>> patents didn't exist and so their introduction must have also
>> led to a lot of speculation, much wrong but some perhaps
>> right, about what the court decisions then would mean. Today,
>> we have a lot more information to apply and over a world wide
>> system, so I'm thinking we aren't in the same situation of
>> speculation that we were in 30 years ago.
>
>The earliest software patents (late 60's early 70's)  required
>that a hardware implementation be part of the patent.

Yes.  Thanks for that reminder.

Jon




>Patents especially software patents have one use that
>copyrights do not and that is to put an idea into the public
>domain in such a way and to prevent it from being owned
>and controlled by anyone else.
>
>I have done this twice specifically for that reason. In
>both cases went as far as a patent disclosure and
>never following through so the disclosure itself would be
>a matter of public record. (BYTE paper bytes and the
>physics behind touch sensitive switches) Both were done
>in the 70's and both would have long expired.
>
>In both cases that I know of software patents paying
>well they were pursued by companies that bought patents
>just before they would expire and then used very
>aggressive approaches to collect royalties (close to extortion).
>One of these was related to scanning of LCD displays
>and the other was an obscure barcode patent. The rules
>have changed now to require patent owners to have
>a competitive interest in the technology.
>
>Regards,
>
>
>w..

On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:22:46 -0700, I wrote:

>I wasn't thinking so much about analogy to other business
>areas _within_ the North American continent, but to the same
>business areas outside of it.  Which is why I asked though
>you had provided such examples.
>
>I'll stop asking, now.

I'm saying that since I was sincerely interested in what you
might know about this, not about being put in the position of
badgering.  Beyond a point, that is what it becomes.

But I should clarify what I said above, as accepting the end
of a conversation but not being clear about why might be
misread.  You made a point that made me wonder, namely that
eliminating software patents would make things stricter,
writing "Dropping software patents may result in software
protection with teeth."  I don't know much about books, but I
don't recall patents ever being significant there.  My
recollection is that copyright has dominated as far back as I
can remember, in varying ways.  I certainly do not know how
to translate that experience.  What would be useful to
someone as ignorant about law as I am would be a
demonstrative example of "protection with teeth" in a legal
environment that exists elsewhere in the world where software
patents do not play as significant a role as they may in the
US which makes your point.

What confuses me about your writing here, and it does appear
to be internally inconsistent to me from my legally ignorant
point of view, is that you also _seem_ to simultaneously
assert that patents don't make anyone money and in the two
cases you mention the situation has been changed, anyway, so
that it wouldn't work anymore.  Seems like you are arguing
two different ways at once -- that patents in the US are
significant enough to take the teeth out of software
protection and simultaneously also so insignificant that no
one makes any money from them.

There is a vague loophole from my ignorant view, which is
that you are saying _direct_ money but that indirectly there
is still some substantial value to software patents --
perhaps only to help out large companies squash smaller ones?
I don't know.  That's just a guess, because I really don't
know where you took this, at all.

Seems conflicting to me.  Besides, it seems you would prefer
to refer to other industries which use copyright and don't
use patent, when that really doesn't help me see how the
injection of patent protection into the system actually
weakens the protection, broadly speaking.

I admit.  I'm confused by all this.  But I also have asked
enough and must accept when further questions would have to
be considered excessive.  You've given your answers and your
time and that's more than enough.  I'll just keep your
thoughts in mind and see if perhaps enlightenment comes later
to me.  It may happen.

Jon