Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!decwrl!bacchus.pa.dec.com!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) Subject: Re: thought Dillon and friends would like to know Message-ID: Sender: news@wrl.dec.com (News) Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica References: <1990Jul27.204559.26305@athena.mit.edu> <1990Jul29.024841.1000@agate.berkeley.edu> <90210.100908GRGREF@BYUVM.BITNET> <10743@wehi.dn.mu.oz> Date: 3 Aug 90 16:14:00 N-Reply-To: BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz's message of 2 Aug 90 12:49:50 GMT Lines: 84 In article <10743@wehi.dn.mu.oz> BAXTER_A@wehi.dn.mu.oz writes: > Actually, a patent *is* protection for ideas...a copyright is protection > for an implementation. CRAP. A patent is protection for the owner (not necessarily the inventor) of an INVENTION. An IDEA cannot be patented in the US unless it has also been IMPLEMENTED. Then, it is the IMPLEMENTATION which can be patented IF it also meets other requirements (like not being public knowlege, being inventive (!), etc). While the original comment wasn't quite correct, it was a lot closer than what you're spouting. Copyright covers implementations. Patent covers "inventions", which is a pretty broad area. The invention doesn't even have to be implemented, just implementable - as well as meeting those other requirements you mention. Once it's patented, independent re-implementation - even if they aren't identical - are infringements of the patent. Copyright protection is relatively weak, covering only one implementation (at least, that used to be the case). Patent protection is very strong, covering any implementation, and in many cases even similar products (consider the Bell patent on the Telephone, or the Selden (non-)patent on the automobile). An algorythm per se can not be patented. Was probably is patented is the implementation of the algorythm in modems. (I don't know, I'm just guessing). In which case, there is no problem. This is out of date. Up until about 1981, software could not be patented at all. At that time, the Supreme Court decided (in Diamond vs. Deihr) that inclusion of a computer program did not mean automatic rejection of a patent application. The patent office took this to mean that you could patent software. There are over 2000 patents covering software, and nothing but software. Examples include: #4,736,308 covers nesting scrollable objects inside other scrollable objects. Apple is being sued for violating this one with hypercard. #4,197,590 is the infamous "X-or cursor" patent, covering X-oring a cursor onto the screen to make it visible against all backgrounds, and for easy restoration of the screen. DEC (among others shipping X) is being held up for license fees on this one. #4,633,416 & 4,602,286 cover computerized graphics technics including airbrushing, stenciling, and combining two images under control of a third. #4,398,249 covers "natural order recalc" in spreadsheets. If a company sells a spreadsheet, they've probably got a lawsuit on their hands over this one already. #4,555,755 covers storing the obscured parts of windows in overlapping window systems for quick restoration. AT&T is threatening to sue everybody distributing X for this one (I wonder if I could purchase the rights to use that in the Amiga market, and make everybody who uses SMARTREFRESH windows pay me 1% of gross sales - including CBM! Would beat the heck out of actually _working_ for a living). #4,558,302 covers compress. My understanding is that there are actually three patents on that algorithm, and Unisys is demanding 3% of gross sales from anyone who wants to license it. Hey CBM - you gonna ship BRU with compress turned on? And is MRBackup going to have that feature vanish? IBM has patents (#4,656,583 being the one I've got listed) on compiler optimizing technics, including register coloring and computing available expressions. #4,742,450 covers "shared copy-on-write segments". I understand that IBM also has a patent covering "stored-program computers", but that was usually attached to a story of them only dragging it out to wave at people who wanted them to pay a license fee. Wander what's going to happen when they meet someone like REFAC (holders of #4,398,249) who doesn't create anything but licenses & lawsuits). Still depressed by the whole thing,