Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!looking!brad From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: Copyrights) Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Date: Tue, 07 Aug 90 20:56:53 GMT Message-ID: <1990Aug07.205653.10322@looking.on.ca> References: <1990Jul27.014947.19528@hellgate.utah.edu> <>> <2096:Jul2900:53:4390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <9492@goofy.Apple.COM> <1990Aug01.022905.26807@l So what's the problem. The point of patent law is to protect inventions (and to also thus encourage their publication). If Frobnob invents a really good algorithm, and it's not at all obvious to those who haven't seen it before, then why not have Frobnob own it. We're assuming that without Frobnob's work, *nobody* would know the algorithm -- it wouldn't even exist. Algorithms are not laws of nature like F=MA. At least not the kind of algorithms I'm talking about. They don't exist until somebody creates them. This is the philosophy. We then have a couple more pragmatic issues to deal with. a) What about the kind of invention that is "waiting to happen", such that one person is merely first, and others independently discover it. b) What about inventions that are truly obvious -- where it's the problem that's new, and not the solution. Well, these are tough questions, but they are the same for algorithms and for mechanical inventions. The decision, in patent law, to give the rights to the first filer, screwing subsequent independent developers, is a tough, and often unfair one. But what, other than the abandonment of patent, is the alternative. In the case of B, that's where we need judges and experts in the field of research. But again, no difference between algorithms and mechanisms. A mechanism *is* an algorithm to me. The thing that's valuable about a patented mechanism is "how it works" not how it is made. The difference is engineering. If the only difference between idea and realization is competent engineering, then as far as intellectual property is concerned, the idea and its realization are the same. If truly creative engineering is required, then it's more complex. (But truly creative engineering is also invention, unlike more mundane engineering of the "here's blueprints, make this for me" sort.) -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473