Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:3063 comp.org.usenix:2067 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!pacbell.com!lll-winken!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!rufus!drake.almaden.ibm.com!drake From: drake@drake.almaden.ibm.com Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: How come include file patent isn't mentioned in position paper? Message-ID: <740@rufus.UUCP> Date: 12 May 91 08:20:16 GMT References: <14730@ulysses.att.com> <27383@drilex.UUCP> Sender: news@rufus.UUCP Distribution: usa Organization: IBM Almaden Research Center Lines: 32 In article <27383@drilex.UUCP> dricejb@drilex.UUCP (Craig Jackson drilex1) writes: > If somebody really comes up with a way >to do it in 10 lines of code, maybe they should get a 7-year patent on it or so. >However, if a large company merely throws programmer time at something >and implements something brute-force that should not be patentable. Hmm, I disagree with this on 2 levels. First, what you said seems to boil down to: If I invest $20.00 in an idea, I should get fully exclusive use of it for 7 years. If I invest $1,000,000 in an idea, I should get nothing in return. Come again? If what you really meant was that short, elegant algorithms should get preferential treatment over expensive, ugly ones, well, they do. If I figure out an expensive way to do something, I can patent it. If you then come out with an elegant and cheap way to do it, you can patent THAT. My guess is that your patent will be more in demand than mine. Second, I don't see how programmer time relates to whether something's patentable. To get a patent I don't have to have a working (coded) system...just a new idea. Standard disclaimers go here. Sam Drake / IBM Almaden Research Center Internet: drake@ibm.com BITNET: DRAKE at ALMADEN Usenet: ...!uunet!ibmarc!drake Phone: (408) 927-1861