Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:31842 comp.sys.mac.programmer:6254
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
From: ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Software Patents
Message-ID: <3206@tank.uchicago.edu>
Date: 12 May 89 19:48:17 GMT
Sender: news@tank.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Lines: 31



I recall that there was a discussion of software patents a few weeks ago.  Some
people argued that algorithms could be patented; some said they couldn't.

Well the truth is: they can be, and are -- in ever increasing numbers.  Check
out today's New York Times: there's a front page article on the rising trend in
software patenting.

Apparently some firm is claiming that Hypercard is infringing on its patents
(they're not going after Apple; instead they're trying to get $100 out of each
HyperCard developer, or something like that).  Another firm filed a patent on
some part of windows (not "Windows", like from Microsoft; but "windows", the
generic concept!).  On this last one, the NYT wasn't too clear what the firm
claimed to be patenting, and seemed skeptical about it's importance.

I believe in protection of innovation, and to some extent "look and feel" (I'm
one of those seemingly few people who side with Apple in the Apple/Microsoft
case), but some of this stuff in the article is pretty scary.  One person
suggested there might even have to be a clearinghouse for patents, where
programmers could check out whether a concept was patented or not.  Sheesh!


 
Robert
------
ra_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu
------
generic disclaimer: all my opinions are mine
------
MOFO knows!