Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Re: patent office closure
Message-ID: <5667@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 12:51:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.5667
Posted: Wed Jun  5 12:51:55 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Jun-85 12:51:55 EDT
References: <1926@watcgl.UUCP>, <656@lsuc.UUCP> <5652@utzoo.UUCP>, <917@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 56

> The purpose of patent law is to give the inventor some time to make a
> reasonable profit from his invention.  It is not meant to stifle creativity.
> This is why patent law expressly forbids the granting of a patent for an idea
> (read algorithm).  ...

What else is an invention, but a novel idea?  The whole concept of patents
is proprietary rights on ideas, as opposed to the details of how they are
expressed (which is copyrights).  The problem with software is that patent
law does forbid patenting scientific discoveries, e.g. laws of nature, and
nobody can quite decide whether algorithms are science or invention.
It's definitely a hard problem.

> Agreed.  But not for software. Both patent law and copyright law had their
> foundations laid long ago, their authors had no idea of what was to come.
> It's no surprise that software falls into a gap.  What's needed is a new form
> of protection that recognizes the special qualities and problems of software.

I agree that there are problems with software, particularly in the area
of copyrights, but I think patent protection on new ways of doing things
in software remains a valid concept.  Why should a new way of (say)
drawing lines on a display be any less worthy of protection than a new
way of cutting gear teeth?

In the absence of effective patent law (and our patent system has been
getting less effective all the time), the result is that people keep new
ideas secret instead.  There are probably some nifty ideas, things that
would benefit mankind, in the Quickdraw package that does the Macintosh's
graphics.  Nobody's gonna know for quite a while.  This is precisely what
patents are supposed to prevent!

> Perhaps not the word processor, but how about VISICALC?  How about SMALLTALK
> or the software in the XEROX STAR?   and a host of others?

I am actually quite surprised that the authors of Visicalc didn't try for
patent protection; it would have made sense.  What could possibly be wrong
with paying them a small royalty when you sell your spreadsheet program,
which is based on their leap of creativity?  (I agree that there is a
problem with patent holders getting greedy and stifling licensing, and
this is one of the areas that needs work before patent law can become
realistic again.)

> You've mentioned (from what I have been told) one of the biggest 'gotcha's
> in Patent law: "obvious to one skilled in the art".  What's obvious? What's
> skilled?

That and "prior art" are indeed sticky points.  I don't know quite how to
solve some of the problems there, but I don't think the problems justify
abandoning the whole concept.


And, sigh, I fully agree with you that the latest doings of our wonderful
government have nothing to do with improving intellectual-property protection,
by either your route or mine.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry