Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!uniwa!DIALix!metapro!bernie From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Software Copyright Message-ID: <1991May14.105134.7261@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> Date: 14 May 91 10:51:34 GMT References: <3287@legs.UUCP> Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia Lines: 73 In <3287@legs.UUCP> kaz@ast.COM (Richard Kaczmarek) writes: >If your thoughts are "Why did he ask that question here?", be aware that my >asbestos suit is at the cleaners.:). If your thoughts are "Hey, this is >going to affect my livlihood," post. Like most other people, who sweat long hours over a greasy keyboard, I feel that I need to protect what I create. At this point in time, there are only two mechanisms which I could employ to protect my work, and the ideas on which it's based; namely copyright and patent. Copyright is well defined, and although there is a variety of agreements, they mostly work. However, copyrights fall short of the mark when one protects an idea, and this is why people try to patent software. Patents have been in general use, protecting the rights of inventors for many years, and Patent co-operation treaties exist between most countries. (It's interesting to note that it's more difficult to Patent than to Copyright, partly because the co-operation treaties are more restrictive.) Judging from my own experiences with Patent lawyers and Patent Examiners, it's hard to see how they could be in a position to judge what is Patentable. Both work from their own knowledge of the subject, and research to discover precedent. Their research usually starts with existing patents, and then, maybe, they consult reference material, related to the subject. I'm not aware of any "experts" ever being called in to comment on a particular application. As there are few existing software patents, examiners and lawyers are often flying by the seat of their pants. So what? Well, considering that one can Patent anything if it appears novel, and not obvious to someone "skilled in the art", then it becomes very easy to Patent anything if you're on the leading edge of any niche technology. Perhaps it should be. My argument against software Patents is that in the current framework, they are likely to be abused, because in most cases, the Patent Examiner is not particularly "skilled in the art", and may think that something is gee-whiz, when it's really ho-hum to the peers of the inventor: i.e. obvious! This brings me around to my proposal, i.e. leading-edge technology should be subject to confidential peer review prior to approval by the Patent Examiner. The Examiner would still weed out most applications but submit those believed to be worthy of approval, to a confidential peer review, and take their judgement into consideration, in approving/rejecting the patent. The mechanisms of confidential peer review are critical in protecting the rights of the inventor: 1. How many peers? 2. How shall they be selected? 3. How long should the peers be allowed to review the application? 4. How can confidentiality be protected? These are only a few of the questions which come to mind, almost immediately. -- Bernd Felsche, _--_|\ #include Metapro Systems, / sale \ Fax: +61 9 472 3337 328 Albany Highway, \_.--._/ Phone: +61 9 362 9355 Victoria Park, Western Australia v Email: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au