Quote: Original post by Sander

The biggest prolem with software patents is that software is already protected by copyright. The only advantage a parent has over copyright is the ability to kill an independeltly created work similar to your own. In the software world, where new things are evolved from old things rather than radically redesigned and completely reimplemented in a new way, this kills the market.

Ah, having read this more carefully, I think I see where Sander is coming from. However, that particular problem (independent concurrent development) is an issue with patents of any type, and is hardly specific to software patents. While one can of course debate the value of patents in general, I was under the impression that this thread was about how software patents compare to more traditional patents. As for the statement that the software world always evolves new algorithms rather than spend significant effort designing them from scratch (relatively speaking of course), that is exactly what I've taken issue with in my other posts. =)

Quote: I'm starting to wonder how it is there's a serious debate on this topic.

The alternative to patents is trade secrets. Keeping things under wraps works very well for the manufacturing-type industries. For example, if you want to steal your competitor's secrets and make cheap knock-offs, then you'd have to break into that competitor's facilities and take away that piece of technology. You basically have to commit a crime to gain the know-how.

The problem with trade secrets is that many inventions cannot be hidden away when marketed. Take drugs for example. Once you have discovered a mollecule and put it on drugstore shelves, any lab on the planet can determine its chemical composition and make cheaper duplicates. The same goes with software-based inventions. The few opcodes that make a software application so valuable are in plain view of everyone. How do you protect the invention expressed by those few opcodes?

Quote: I'm actually against the software patent system that we have in the United States currently.

I don't like it either. As jurisdisctions tend to have differing opinions about what is patentable and what isn't, we are not going to see an end to the software patent debate anytime soon.

-cb

Quote: Original post by cbenoi1
The few opcodes that make a software application so valuable are in plain view of everyone. How do you protect the invention expressed by those few opcodes?

With copyrights.

I'll restate: The only additionaly value of having a patent alongside a copyright on a piece of software is the ability to kill off an independantly developed alternative(*). Anything else is already adequately covered by copyright.

You do not have the 'right' to be able to kill alternative products. You do not have the 'right' to be free from competitors. The market does not owe you a living. The only use of a software patent is as an anti-competetive weapon.

(*)I'm not again going into how that alternative was developed (independant research, legal reverse engineering).

Quote: I was under the impression that this thread was about how software patents compare to more traditional patents. As for the statement that the software world always evolves new algorithms rather than spend significant effort designing them from scratch (relatively speaking of course), that is exactly what I've taken issue with in my other posts.

Software patents differ from normal patents because softweare is already protected by copyright. No other patentable material is doubly protected this was. That is what makes software patents so heinous. As for the 'software evolves' bit, it's an arguement why softweare should solely be protected by copyrights and not solely by patents.

If you want to argue the case for software patents, argue why software should not be protected by copyrights, because the real evil is the double protection software has.

Quote: With copyrights.

Copyrights protect the expression, not the inherent invention. Those are two different things.

-cb

Quote: Copyrights protect the expression, not the inherent invention. Those are two different things.

Exactly. :) There's no "double protection" involved, as copyrights make it illegal for someone to rip off pieces of your work verbatim (plagiarism) while patents make it illegal for someone to rip off your ideas that your work was based upon (more or less).

Quote: You do not have the 'right' to be able to kill alternative products.

No, you don't, which is why a patent can be invalidated if evidence of prior art is met by another party.

Quote: You do not have the 'right' to be free from competitors.

Uh... yes, you do. That is exactly what a patent (any patent) gives its owner. This is also why patents have expiration dates. ^_^ Now we can certainly argue whether or not patents are really necessary, but I think that's kind of outside the scope of this thread. Personally, given my take on human nature, I believe they're quite necessary, if often misused. :)

Disclaimer: I am an no way a patent lawyer or any other type of legal expert. My knowledge of patent law, such as it is, comes from my own readings and experience. If someone who has legal training regarding such matters needs to correct any greivous errors in my thinking, please feel free to do so. [smile]

Quote: Original post by Ramius

Quote: Copyrights protect the expression, not the inherent invention. Those are two different things.

Exactly. :) There's no "double protection" involved, as copyrights make it illegal for someone to rip off pieces of your work verbatim (plagiarism) while patents make it illegal for someone to rip off your ideas that your work was based upon (more or less).

But it is. Patents allow me to take the patented idea and apply it to some other area not covered by the patent (given a properly narrow worded patent, not the vague and broad patents we see these days). That is because patents apply to the application of ideas, not the idea's themselves(*). Copyright allows me to create a similar work independantly. Patents on copyrighted software allow neither.

(*)Yet another reason against patents on algorithms. An algorith is an idea (or a codified expression of an idea), not an application of an idea.

Quote:

Quote: You do not have the 'right' to be free from competitors.

Uh... yes, you do. That is exactly what a patent (any patent) gives its owner. This is also why patents have expiration dates. ^_^

No. Patents only make sure that said cometitor doesn't use your invention. And it's not a right, it's a granted priviledge at best.

Quote: The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

If congress decides tomorrow that software patents do not promote the progress of science or usefull arts and abolishes them all, then there's no 'right' you can claim to get/keep them anyway.

Quote: Original post by Ramius
Exactly. :) There's no "double protection" involved, as copyrights make it illegal for someone to rip off pieces of your work verbatim (plagiarism) while patents make it illegal for someone to rip off your ideas that your work was based upon (more or less).

There's no "verbatim" here. Copyrights protect any derivative work - this doesn't just include word for word, it includes cases where you add in new material, and theoretically anything which involves you starting with someone else's work (though in practice, if it's too modified from the original, it will be hard to prove). If someone has a complex software model, then copyright will protect that, even if someone goes through and changes the variable names or whatever.

I don't see why an idea should be protected. Can someone give me an example of an idea which has cost significant time and/or money to come up with? I don't mean "a really good idea", I mean something that has required investment.

Should ideas be protected with respect to other works, e.g., plotlines in a novel?

Quote: Patents allow me to take the patented idea and apply it to some other area not covered by the patent

Sure. So you found a badly written patent with a loophole. As you said, nothing prevents you from exploiting that loophole. Be my guest.

Quote: Copyright allows me to create a similar work independantly.

Of similar utility, sure. I'd be weary of Look & Feel, though.

Quote: Patents on copyrighted software allow neither.

Sorry, but that one got lost in the translation. Can you give a real-world example of a "patented copyrighted software"? That will help the discussion.

-cb

I'm against software patents. They don't fulfil their intended function. If the duration was shorter, they might work.

I think it's important to note that patent law was developed for mechanical innovations, where it might take an start-up company decades to go from invention to market. Patents made sense because otherwise an inventor could be afraid to invest the time and money in attempting to market his invention, and therefore afraid to invest time and money in inventing things in the first place.

With software innovations, on the other hand, one could go from invention to market in years or even months. Many modern patents on innovations marketed by large companies are still pending after they've hit the market, so they certainly aren't being used to protect the invention from 'theft' before the company has had time to develop it.

Instead, they are used after an invention has achieved wide use to prevent competitors from improving upon their designs and 'stealing' their market share in the process. They are used to inhibit the progress of science and useful arts.

For example, Thomson was still aquiring US patents which it claims apply to MP3 in 2001, which is long after MPEG dominated the digital video market. These patents are not for protecting Thomson whilst it attempts to the enter the DV market itself: it has a very strong position in that market.

The patents are to ensure that Thomson can force its competitors to either pay its licensing fees, or make equipment that is incompatible with MPEG. If you want to make a DVD player, you must pay your competitor (who is hardly a startup, being worth $5bn) for the priviledge to do so. It should not be difficult to see that this hardly advances the progress of science and useful arts.

Note that this is somewhat different from the case of a physical patent on a component of a DVD player. In principle, one could develop an alternative component. Indeed, one could be encouraged to do so, so this may be good for progress. Suppose the laser device was patented. A physical patent could not cover all sources of laser light -- that would be tantamount to a patent on a law of nature, which have been established to be unpatentable.

The MPEG patents are manifestly different because they are wide enough to cover all possible MPEG decoders. Innovation is discouraged because, no matter what innovation in MPEG decoding you come up with, you'll have to pay Thomson to be permitted to develop it, and if you came up with some totally new alternative, the ubiquity of MPEG would present a substantial barrier to entry in the market, not to mention that courts may interpret the patents vaguely enough that it is questionable as to whether or not one could possibly develop an alternative which you could guarantee wasn't covered by patents. Note that Ogg is not known to be free from patents: it is merely free from known patents.

Quote: Original post by cbenoi1
The alternative to patents is trade secrets

No, one alternative to patents are trade secrets. Another alternative is not having any protection of your algorithms, and competing on the grounds of the quality of your implementation and the support you offer for it.

Quote: Original post by cbenoi1
Sorry, but that one got lost in the translation. Can you give a real-world example of a "patented copyrighted software"? That will help the discussion.

I'm confused. Are you seriously claiming that you don't know of any copyrighted software which is covered by patents?

[Edited by - Nathan Baum on May 3, 2006 11:49:32 PM]

Quote: Original post by cbenoi1

Quote: Patents allow me to take the patented idea and apply it to some other area not covered by the patent

Sure. So you found a badly written patent with a loophole. As you said, nothing prevents you from exploiting that loophole. Be my guest.

Actually, that's how patents are supposed to work. You patent the means by which a certain result is achieved, not the result itself (see also my earlier example on your 3D imager for my game, the MPEF parent of the poster above, etcetera). The result is the idea. You can't parent ideas, only the implementation of idea's. That's why patents always state:

1) the result
2) how the result is achieved
3) a few close variations on (2)

And that is why in the current patent landgrab everybody tries to be as vague as possible on 2, and tries to list under (3) any vague method by which could theoretically be achieved.

Quote:

Quote: Patents on copyrighted software allow neither.

Sorry, but that one got lost in the translation. Can you give a real-world example of a "patented copyrighted software"? That will help the discussion.

How about virtually all patented software? All software written is copyrighted, unless it's so old that the copyright has expired (software engineering inn't old enough for this yet) or it has been explicitly put in the public domain.

So, if you're arguing for software patents, then why should software only be covered by patents and not by copyright? I hope you agree with me that software should be copyrightable. If you do, then elaborate why software, and only software, should have this double protection?