Wrong.
The idea is patentable, the implementation is copyrightable. And yes, I too
agree, this is completely screwed up!
Jamey Kirby, Windows DDK MVP
StorageCraft Inc.
xxxxx@storagecraft.com
http://www.storagecraft.com
-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxx@lists.osr.com [mailto:xxxxx@lists.osr.com]
On Behalf Of Moreira, Alberto
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 7:13 AM
To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was “how
to execute a process…”)
I’m not an attorney and I may be dead wrong, but I believe that those
“steps” of yours aren’t what should be the object of the patent, or am I
wrong ? A step is just an idea, and as such, I hope it’s not patentable.
It’s the implementation that’s the objective of the patent, and that’s not
about secret steps but about tangible and implementable technology. In that
sense, a listing’s already obsolete the moment it gets out.
So, for example, assume you invented a new computer instruction, call it
“jump from” instead of “jump to”. The idea of a “jump from” instruction
shouldn’t be patentable ! Your implementation of that instruction might be,
but then, I could just as well implement it my own way. And before you jump
in saying that that’s hardware, well, computer instructions today are
implemented in Verilog HDL.
What I also do believe is that the overwhelming majority of software patents
are so trivially obvious that it takes a real flight of fancy to believe
that they’re worth a patent. Because, again, patents should protect
technology and implementation, not science and ideas - and the whole point
of a computer program is to do away with the issues of implementing
technology and replace it with raw ideas embedded in code. I may be wrong,
but I see little if anything in anyone’s software program that can be
patented !
Those steps you mention are science, not technology, and hence they must not
be protected: I should be able to go through the same steps and change my
implementation and yet not violate your patent. It’s your *code* that should
be the object of a patent ! Not your ideas.
Alberto.
-----Original Message-----
From: John Hensley [mailto:xxxxx@msn.com]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 10:58 PM
To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
“how to execute a process…”)
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:18:49 -0400, “Moreira, Alberto”
wrote:
>
>I believe it boils down to what Mr. Farrell pointed out: if my software’s
>trivial enough that anyone can duplicate it in a jiffy, maybe it’s not
worth
>to be protected by the laws of intellectual property. I know that a pretty
>common model this side of the water is that intellectual property laws are
>there so that I can make a good pass at cornering something as “mine” and
>thus ward off competition, but then, isn’t competition the very generator
of
>a healthy market ?
I believe you may have it backwards. My attorneys have always stressed
that US patent statutes were implemented solely to foster competition.
The US statutes allow you to protect a series of steps that make up a
specific implementation in exchange for revealing those steps to the
world. By revealing the step to the world you are allowing other to
improve upon them and ultimately leap frog you.
Copyrights on the other hand do nothing more than protect against
direct cutting and pasting or translating from one piece of work into
another. They do nothing to protect against someone implementing the
same steps in a different body of work. Unless a GPL work has patent
protection there is little to protect the actual steps revealed in the
work.
This should all be taken with a grain of salt because I’m just
relaying what various attorneys have told me when I was in the process
of filing for various patents and copyrights. I could be completely
wrong and full of bologna.
…John
>
>Alberto.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Walter Oney [mailto:xxxxx@oneysoft.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 5:09 PM
>To: Windows System Software Developers Interest List
>Subject: [ntdev] Re: value of open-source in the driver community (was
>“how to execute a process…”)
>
>
>Bill Casey wrote:
>> Bottom line is that these “penguinites” as you so politely call
>them are
>> nothing more than lazy, thieving, stupid, fascist, bottom-dwelling
>> scavengers. They want to impose their socialist world-view (that
software
>> should be free) on all of us. They want it free because in the final
>> analysis they are cheap assholes cloaked in the mantle of world saviors.
>
>I feel your pain. I think I did more than most to move my own job
>offshore, so I shouldn’t complain. To give these folks their due,
>they’re just trying to feed their families too. Still, I draw the line
>at explaining every last detail of how someone else can do a job that I
>studied long and hard to learn.
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@compuware.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose
it to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately
and then destroy it.
—
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@storagecraft.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com