a computer program is not a patentable invention

Albert van der Horst wrote:

> In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us@4ax.com>,
> Jon Kirwan  <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
> >parsing all this, correctly and well.  I doubt they are in
> >nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
> >and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
> >judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.
>
> And of course they *should* be based on domain expert
> witnesses, impartial and in good faith.

I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally  less
expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases
that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a
legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing
houses do win copyright cases .

In article <4bc84ce3$0$1996$8404b019@news.wineasy.se>,
David Brown  <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>On 16/04/2010 12:47, whygee wrote:
>> David Brown wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> There are occasional areas in which patents /do/ make sense - drug
>>> research is an oft-quoted example since there the big companies pay a
>>> great deal of money to develop the drugs covered by the patents. But
>>> in most cases, innovation, economic growth, consumers and companies
>>> would be far better served by scraping patents entirely. A good start
>>> would be a gradual reduction in the time for patents down towards a
>>> couple of years (with exceptions such as ten years for drug patents).
>>>
>>> The patent situation in Europe is not nearly as bad, but there is
>>> progression towards the American mess.
>>
>> I agree 100% with your whole analysis.
>>
>
>It's not often that happens!  Usually I'm considered a bit extreme when
>I write that sort of rant...

No, it is spot on. Actually I stored the article, in order to discuss
it with friends. Thanks.

>
>mvh.,
>
>David
>

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

In article <MPG.263147bc14bcf30e98b056@news.east.earthlink.net>,
WangoTango  <Asgard24@mindspring.com> wrote:
>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.
>

Sorry, I missed it because NZ didn't ring a bell, and I overlooked.
Now I understand it is New Zealand.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:32:52 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>> >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
>> >> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
>> >> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
>> >> you provide your own contrary evidence.
>> >
>> >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
>> >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
>> >The choice to exercise them is not always made.
>>
>> By whom?  The owners?  If that's all this is about, then you
>> seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
>> much because they have patents, but that if software patents
>> are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
>> copyright violations more than before?  Is that your point?
>
>The comment you are referring to came in response to the
>apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
>software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
>copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
>software patents.

I'm not sure I follow the semantic intent of your words here.
Each word makes sense by itself.  But not together.  So I
suppose this is why I didn't make much of this paragraph,
yesterday.

>I base that on significantly longer protection and court
>precedents over damage awards that could be based on
>actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
>content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
>change actual  over all practice.

Since I didn't get the first paragraph, this "based on" part
doesn't add much for me.

>Software patents give a
>lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
>redefined claims for short period of time.

I think I understand this.  But I don't fully agree with the
thrust.  Patents can last around two decades and in the
computer field that is "almost forever."  In other words,
about the "same as" copyright protection.  And copyright can
be "worked around."  Patents cannot be nearly so easily.

In other words, I don't place nearly as much emphasis on the
difference of duration as you seem to make of it.

>Copyright
>gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
>for a long period of time.

Since folks without very deep pockets (a term I read you
using elsewhere, today) don't really have access to patent
protection (I've had the luxury to work with patent attorneys
on two uncomfortable stretches in my life and in both cases
the costs were about US$60k/loose-man-month), copyright
provides _stronger_ protection, since it exists at all for
them.  As you mentioned elsewhere, individuals and small
companies actually win such cases.

For those with deep pockets, of course, I will agree that
copyright does provide weaker protection.  But I think I read
you saying that removing patent protection would cause more
teeth in copyright protection.  I'm still not following that
thread of thought and the above doesn't help me.  Yet.

>Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
>protection stronger?

I think that is the question you already answered, expressing
an opinion that it would.

>I don't

And here is a broken fragment that I'm not sure about.  Did
you mean to retract the earlier point [by adding 'think so'
to the above?]  Or?

>but the sheer threshold of
>getting a software patent made a lot of patentable
>software relatively unprotected because the authors
>didn't know that copyright protection could also
>have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
>through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases

And this is where I am still hung up.  It feels like you are
suggesting what I earlier thought you were and which doesn't
make any sense to me.  Let me take this slowly.

(1)  Copyright exists on works, today, even if you don't
register them officially.  (I think.)  One only needs a few
words, at most, with software anyway.

(2)  As you mention elsewhere, only deep pockets have access
to patent protection.  Such folks certainly have ALL the
necessary advice they need with copyright.

(3)  Parsing your words above, I gather that you are talking
about a group of people/companies that had "patentable
software" that was "relatively unprotected" because the
authors were ignorant about copyright?  Isn't that an
argument that they _use_ copyright?

(4)  You mention a "sheer threshold" regarding patents and I
take your meaning to be that this "patentable software"
couldn't reach that threshold.  Yes?  Because they don't have
enough money?  If so, the loss of software patents won't
affect them, anyway.

I'm still not following the argument about why you think that
the loss of software patents would add _more_ teeth to
software protection in the US than it already enjoys.

Jon

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:45:24 -0400, Walter Banks
<walter@bytecraft.com> wrote:

>Albert van der Horst wrote:
>
>> In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us@4ax.com>,
>> Jon Kirwan  <jonk@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> >But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble
>> >parsing all this, correctly and well.  I doubt they are in
>> >nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics
>> >and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the
>> >judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases.
>>
>> And of course they *should* be based on domain expert
>> witnesses, impartial and in good faith.
>
>I would agree. Copyright cases have been generally  less
>expensive than patent cases. I don't know many patent cases
>that haven't been won without very deep pockets or a
>legal firm as a partner. Individuals and small publishing
>houses do win copyright cases .

I also agree, having worked with patent attorneys charging
upwards of US$60k/loose-man-month.

So this suggests dividing the entire patent and copyright
issue into at least two separate categories:  as it applies
to "deep pockets" and as it applies to "shallow pockets."
Patents are largely off the table for shallow pockets, so all
there is is copyright.

Jon

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:21:44 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:


> And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses,
> impartial and in good faith.

Now that would be interesting to actually see, one of them impartial 
expert witnesses, rather than just another mouthpiece for hire.

terryc wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 20:21:44 +0000, Albert van der Horst wrote:
> 
> 
>> And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses,
>> impartial and in good faith.
> 
> Now that would be interesting to actually see, one of them impartial 
> expert witnesses, rather than just another mouthpiece for hire.

I always thought there is a reason why they are called Court of Law and not Court of Justice...

Tom

On 19/04/2010 03:32, Walter Banks wrote:
>
>
> Jon Kirwan wrote:
>
>>>> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__
>>>> exercized.  The BIOS case you talked about.  So your _if_ is
>>>> already in hand.  Your implication is that they aren't, yet
>>>> you provide your own contrary evidence.
>>>
>>> Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can
>>> happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights.
>>> The choice to exercise them is not always made.
>>
>> By whom?  The owners?  If that's all this is about, then you
>> seem to be arguing that owners don't now pursue copyright as
>> much because they have patents, but that if software patents
>> are removed from the picture that owners will then pursue the
>> copyright violations more than before?  Is that your point?
>
> The comment you are referring to came in response to the
> apparent joy someone made at the start of the reversal of
> software patents. My arguments have been consistently that
> copyright law may be tougher with a body of precedents than
> software patents.
>
> I base that on significantly longer protection and court
> precedents over damage awards that could be based on
> actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of
> content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally
> change actual  over all practice. Software patents give a
> lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of
> redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright
> gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations
> for a long period of time.
>

I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is 
here.

> Would the dropping of software patents make copyright
> protection stronger?

Remember, software patents are a peculiarity of the USA (there are a few 
patents issued by other countries that are arguably "software patents", 
but these are not common).  You don't have to speculate about what would 
happen without software patents - you simply have to look to Europe.

If the USA dropped software patents, it would become more common to 
bring copyright cases to court - in a country with companies addicted to 
suing each other, if software patents are removed then they will use 
copyrights.  Since to some extent American courts make up the law as 
they go along ("precedence"), this may lead to some changes in copyright 
law, or its interpretation, in the USA.

> I don't but the sheer threshold of
> getting a software patent made a lot of patentable

The "sheer threshold of getting a software patent" !?!  Have you ever 
/looked/ at the sort of junk that gets patented in the USA?  All you 
have to do is use long technical words that the patent "examiner" can't 
understand, drown the document in soporific legalise, pay your fee on 
time and you get your patent.  There are certainly some people that take 
patent applications seriously and only apply for inventions that are 
truly innovative and useful.  But patent offices are swamped with 
nonsense patents (in all countries, but the USA more than others, and in 
all fields, but software more than others).  Most are granted to large 
companies that have employees specialising in making as wide and vague 
patents as they can.

> software relatively unprotected because the authors
> didn't know that copyright protection could also
> have provided them with a lot of adequate protection
> through a court system that had dealt with copyright cases
>

Are you trying to say that there are lots of people out there writing 
new, innovative and useful software, who understand about software 
patents (but don't have the time, money or expertise to get one), yet 
don't understand even the basics about copyright?  Have these mythical 
developers never looked at any other software?  Never seen a "Help 
About" box with a copyright notice?  Never read a book?  I can well 
believe they don't know the rights they have with copyrights, or even 
that copyright is automatic (many people think you have to register it 
in some way).  But I simply don't believe that anyone capable of writing 
software that has a valid claim for a software patent (by USA standards) 
is incapable of googling for "copyright".

In message <l156t9.lio@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes
>There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
>economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
>and China would be certain.

The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Apr 20, 3:43=A0pm, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> In message <l156t9....@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst
> <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes
>
> >There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for
> >economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US
> >and China would be certain.
>
> The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military
> action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war.

Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK.
It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war...
If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor.
They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves,
fuel included.

Dimiter