🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <za-na0l.btoback@netcom.com> btoback@netcom.com (Bruce Toback) writes:
>Copyright protects the exact expression of the program maker, but not
>the design or algorithm that was the real creative work in the program.
>That also deserves protection.

That last bit is debatable. Exactly how "innovative" is the 1-2-3 "L" format
for the row-and-column headings? Lotus claimed look-&-feel protection
for that. The traditional rule was that the code, and only the code, was
protected. That seemed to work pretty well. After all, in spite of the
gross lack of protection :-) our software industry still dominates the planet.
How many of our better-protected industries can make that claim?

>Rather than an "all or nothing" approach, why not a special patent 
>that is appropriate in a very fast-moving field like software?
>Such a patent would not last for 17+ years, but for a shorter 
>period of time, e.g., 3-5 years.

There is precedent for this. Chip masks (the image of an IC chip; the
"negative" from which all the copies are made) are indeed protected under
exactly this sort of special-purpose law.

Under present law, and given the PTO's total lack of understanding and
experience in the computer science field (they patented LZW compression
TWICE!) I am opposed to any form of software patent. If the duration were
shorter, and disclosure was made at the time of application, rather than
when(if) the patent was granted, I would be more favorably inclined towards
patent protection for software. Not that I'd agree that it's a Good Thing;
it would just do little enough damage that I could tolerate it.

    David Hayes    merlin@lerami.lerctr.org