Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: Patent treaty update
Message-ID: <20902@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 24 Apr 91 00:30:05 GMT
References: <49676@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1991Apr3.185516.12631@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Reply-To: daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 49

In article <1991Apr3.185516.12631@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes:

>	I don't understand software patents. How do they differ from 
>copyrights? If I hold several copyrights, can I obtain software patents?

Here's an engineer's attempt at explaining this junk:

Patents and copyrights are entirely different things.  If you copyright a
program (which is essentially automatic, though folks intending a court
battle generally register their copyrights with the appropriate government
agency), no one can legally make copies of it other than you and your
licensees.  However, someone can come along and make a program that works
very much like yours (look and feel copyright legislation notwithstanding).

A patent, on the other hand, is an "invention".  You pay lawyers big bucks
to write up a description of your invention, in big $25 lawyer-type words.
Then you send it to the patent office.  If they deem it a true invention,
something unique that's never been done before, you get a patent for 17
years.  During that time, no one can use your invention without your permission,
even if they invent it independently after you've applied.  And you don't
even have to let anyone use your invention, though typically folks have found
they can get money for patent licenses, and so they do often let other use the
patents.

The real problem with software patents is that the patent office hasn't had 
Clue #1 about software until very recently.  So there are all these patents
on real obvious things that have been around for years, but never patented
(since, of course, they were obvious to their original inventors, and way back
when software patents were not accepted in the US).  The other main problem
with software patents is the magnitude of unique ideas you'll find in a piece
of code.  You might have 10-20 real patentable things in a piece of hardware.
If you're unlucky, 2 or 3 of them might actually be covered by a valid patent,
and you could pay a couple of percent of your income on these to license said
2 or 3 patents.  In a piece of software, you might have 10,000-20,000 things
the patent office considers patentable.  If you have to pay 1% each, and only
1000 of them are patented, you lose big if you try to market your piece of
software.

The other big problem is that big companies spend lots of money trying to get
patents, just because they know they can make big bucks off them.  Little
guys can't afford that many court cases even if they know a good portion of
the patents held against them are invalid based on documentable prior art, so
they give in.  This kind of thing is just really starting to happen, and 
could throw the whole software community into chaos in a few years if it 
keeps going on its currently wacky course.  Stay tuned...
-- 
Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: hazy     BIX: hazy
      "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.