🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Bwx0xq.JqH@iat.holonet.net> phoffman@orac.holonet.net (Paul E. Hoffman) writes:

>oppedahl@panix.com (Carl Oppedahl) writes:

>>From your post, I cannot figure out why you did not also ask about
>>patenting the software.  Have you made the conscious choice not to
>>pursue patent protection?

>Maybe he/she is writing something that is copyrightable but not patentable.

Maybe.  I was just asking.

>Maybe he/she doesn't want to hand some lawyer K$ for a silly patent
>application.

Can't argue with that.  But not all patent applications are silly, right?
For all we know this patent application would not be silly.

>Mabye he/she doesn't believe in software patents.

Could be.

>From the original posting, you have ***absolutely*** no idea what the
>software is. Why are you suggesting that it the person try to patent it?

No, of course I have absolutely no idea.  That's the whole point, the
person posting the original message did not describe it, which I think
is actually pretty smart.  Better to wait and only spill the beans 
_after_ taking whatever protective steps make sense.

Why misquote me?  The original poster asks for help on several forms 
of protection for his software, and I observe that he did not mention
patent protection.  Then I ask if that was a conscious choice.
I certainly did not suggest that it be patented, nor did I opine that
it would be patentable.


>The vast majority of commercial software is not patentable.

I agree that the vast majority of commercial software is not patented.
But I think many items of commercial software represent things that
could have been patented if the author/inventor had applied for a 
patent.


Carl Oppedahl AA2KW  (intellectual property lawyer)
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY  10112-0228
voice 212-408-2578     fax 212-765-2519