Miscellaneous > The Lounge

Confident that EU patent law won't pass

<< < (2/3) > >>

jasonlane:

quote:Originally posted by Stryker:


i dont really agree. If I were to write a book about the civil war, nobody else could because it was my idea? I dont see the difference in software. If I were to write a program that detect what hardware devices i have, nobody else could? It gets way too basic.

Or am I missing something?
--- End quote ---


Yup that's about it. If you patented a love scene in a film, it would be very easy for you persue a court action, if my film had a love scene. I mean just look at the rediculous software patent cases going on in the US now. A case in point:

web page


Patenting software makes it very easy for the plaintiff to engage in action based on very broad terms. The defendant may have very well come to a similar solution, that does not necessarly mean however that code has been stolen. This law breeds monopolism and lack of innovation. However I agree that peoples or company IP has to be protected that's why we need better copyright laws. Copyright is not Patenting, they are two distinc sepperate entities.

[ August 29, 2003: Message edited by: Zardoz ]

Stryker:

quote:Originally posted by flap:
No, I'm saying that if you patented the specific novel you wrote, it would only mean that no-one else could write the exact same book. It wouldn't stop other people from writing books about the civil war. This restriction is already provided by copyright anyway so it wouldn't make much of a difference. Similarly, if someone patented an entire piece of software, this would only prevent other people from writing the exact same program.

--- End quote ---

that's called copyright, and that's exactly how it works. we can't copy the exact same book. to patent it however would allow us to "protect" the idea of the book.

 
quote:
The problem with software patenting is that it covers arbitrary combinations of obvious features, not entire programs. It would be like an author, rather than patenting an entire novel about the civil war, patenting a vague idea used in his book such as a plot device, or a storyline. Or, using the recipe example, it would be like patenting the use of chocolate chips, marzipan and butter in the same recipe.
--- End quote ---


doesn't that go against what you just said? According to your theory on books, it should only stop people from copying the exact same software, which is done by copyright. Just because one's software and one isn't, doesn't change anything.

flap:

quote:we can't copy the exact same book. to patent it however would allow us to "protect" the idea of the book.
--- End quote ---


No, it wouldn't. What do you think the "idea" of a book is, anyway? You generally only patent ideas, whereas you can only copyright entire works.

 
quote:doesn't that go against what you just said? According to your theory on books, it should only stop people from copying the exact same software, which is done by copyright. Just because one's software and one isn't, doesn't change anything.
--- End quote ---


No, you seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting there's a difference between books and software. People don't patent entire pieces of software, or books, or films etc.; they use copyright for that. Microsoft don't patent Microsoft Word, but rather they use copyright to prevent people from copying it. They may, however, patent the individual features of Microsoft Word.

If you patented your entire book, or your entire piece of software (which no-one does, as it would be pointless) it have more or less the same effect as copyrighting it i.e. it would only stop someone from copying the entire thing. Patenting isn't used in this way, it's used to cover specific features or ideas.

Stryker:

quote:Originally posted by flap:


No, you seem to misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting there's a difference between books and software. People don't patent entire pieces of software, or books, or films etc.; they use copyright for that. Microsoft don't patent Microsoft Word, but rather they use copyright to prevent people from copying it. They may, however, patent the individual features of Microsoft Word.

If you patented your entire book, or your entire piece of software (which no-one does, as it would be pointless) it have more or less the same effect as copyrighting it i.e. it would only stop someone from copying the entire thing. Patenting isn't used in this way, it's used to cover specific features or ideas.
--- End quote ---


one click shopping, there's a fighter over that right? it seems pretty basic to me, patenting the clicking of a button to buy something? couldn't i then patent displaying the price using a monitor? it's obsurd. Are you arguing that software patents have no flaws, that it's a good idea?

and i'm sure microsoft would have tried to patent word if there wasn't already word processors before it.


so, i have this handheld game... i look and it says it has patent. If I one were to make another handheld game, ur saying that they could as long as it didn't look exactly the same as the one with the patent? that defeats the point of a patent. I dont think I'm the one misunderstanding this situation.

maybe i'm wrong though, lets hear from some other people.

flap:

quote:it's obsurd. Are you arguing that software patents have no flaws, that it's a good idea?
--- End quote ---


Er no, that's my whole point. My only issue with the email quoted above was that software patents are actually even *more* absurd than it indicates.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page