In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:31:31 +0000
<14511481.lXthrBZ8CK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> EPO Wins Patent for Jesuitical Casuistry
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | As the EPO says, software does not distinguish "between technical and
> | non-technical processes". The reason it doesn't distinguish is because it is
> | a completely factitious distinction: it doesn't exist. Software is just a
> | bunch of algorithms working on data, outputting data; it doesn't
> | solve "technical" problems, it solve mathematical ones. Software is
> | mathematics.
> `----
>
> http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/07/epo-wins-patent-for-jesuitical.html
Not sure that's quite right, but certainly patents of
algorithms won't care if the implementation is in C, C++,
Java, Python, PL/1, PL/SQL, COBOL, SNOBOL, Algol (60 or 68),
C#, Tcl, Ruby, Draco, assembly language, or monks working
with abacuses, tablets, or stones in chiseled groves with
papyrus scribble-pads.
Granted, monks won't do display updates all that quickly... ;-)
>
>
> Recent:
>
> Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates
> Say
That's the whole point, believe it or not. The innovation
that patents are designed to prevent is the innovation
around actual theft of an original idea -- a theft that
allows a ruthless, well-heeled competitor to work around
the original idea's limitations, develop the machinery
required to produce the device the idea covers (or make
other devices more cheaply, because of the idea) and drive
the original inventor out of business. (This is assuming
the idea is in fact original, hence the notion of "prior
art" while examining the patent.)
Granted, that notion is easily abused, especially if the
system is overloaded -- and AFAICT, the USPTO is very busy.
Nor is it clear that the patent system should extend to
the notion of algorithms, as opposed to mechanisms.
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Patent monopolies are believed to drive innovation but they actually impede
> | the pace of science and innovation, Stiglitz said. The current ?patent
> | thicket,? in which anyone who writes a successful software programme is sued
> | for alleged patent infringement, highlights the current IP system?s failure
> | to encourage innovation, he said.
> |
> | Another problem is that the social returns from innovation do not accord with
> | the private returns associated with the patent system, Stiglitz said. The
> | marginal benefit from innovation is that an idea may become available sooner
> | than it might have. But the person who secures the patent on it wins a
> | long-term monopoly, creating a gap between private and social returns.
> `----
>
> http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=1129
[rest snipped for brevity]
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/dev/signature: Resource temporarily unavailable
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
|
