🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.092735.28200@newstand.syr.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:
>In article <1992Aug13.140809.24048@mcs.drexel.edu> uyyifrah@mcs.drexel.edu (Y Yifrah [y^2]) writes:
>>
>>Mathematical and mental processes are supposed to be unpatentable...
>
>Dare I guess that this idea was established long before the advent of the
>modern computer--as in, when all that it would have meant to say "mathematical
>and mental processes are not patentable" was essentially "you cannot
>prevent someone from *thinking* in a certain way..."
>

True, but my point is that the code needs to be revised FOR computers, as there
seems to be a rift in what is what. I'm sure most agree, so this is beating
a dead horse....
>
>>BTW, who said that patents were better? Better for who? Patents give the
>>holder a legalized monopoly. Copyrights work differently, they give the holder
>>a claim on a specific work. Patents are a much more powerful protection for
>>a software company to have, and much more desirable. They last very long,
>>and have become the "new" battleground for R&D companies, with blocking and
>>clustering being the order of the day...
>
>I think you are wrong here.  Patents have a *much* shorter term than do
>copyrights.  Patents alaso allow great leeway for derivative works, while
>copyrights allow none.
>
>The fact of the matter is that copyrights were never intended to be
>applicable to "inventions," for *copyrights* are completely stifling.  For
>creative works such as, for example, writing, it is not considered to be at all
>stifling to tell people that they may not copy a written work, or make changes
>to a particular work (to produce a derivative work).

>Rather, it is considered that creativity is best encouraged by forcing other
>writers to start out on their own, and develop entirely new works.
>
>To apply a copyright to scientific innovation would be to give very long-
>lasting rights to control an entire line of innovation (derivative works).
>Patents, on the other hand, give a short-term right to a specific innovation,
>with absolutely no rights to derivative works.
>
>As such, anybody else can use patented innovations for *free* simply by
>introducing their own innovation/improvement.  This (presumably) provides
>a great incentive to continue the process of innovation, rather than to
>just sit back and use what others have done.
>
If this was a perfect world, you would be right, but its not, multi-national
multi-billion dollar companies try to patent ALL the derivitave works, of both
their patents and of others, trying to STIFLE progress. Patent sitters destroy
the whole idea of patents.  There have been the "fuel efficient" patent
controversies for years. Where a company patents all possible ways of making
a certain inovation, say an oil company on a certain way to save fuel. 

And they just let these patents rot, waiting to pounce with their army of
lawers on any who dare to tread. The "simple" inventor who designs a better
hammer or whatever crap has no hope of enforcing his patent, the lawer battle
is too costly, his best bet is to sell it to some big company who WILL
enforce it, and give him squat on what he could have made....
>
>Here's an example.  The RSA cryptosystem is a well-known example of a patented
>algorithm.  (For those who aren't familiar with it, the RSA cryptosystem is a
>"public-key" cryptosystem, in which anyone can encode a message, but only the
>authorized receiver can decode the message.  It makes life much easier than
>having to pass around secret encryption.decryption keys.)
>
>Under patent law, others (specifically Rabin and Williams) have been able to
>develop variations of the RSA cryptosystem that can be used without infringing
>the RSA patent.  (It happens that these innovations have not become popular
>since, in addition to some improvement, some additional problems are
>introduced by these variations.)
>
>The RSA patent has been licensed for use in a number of different systems,
>since it was patented.
>
>Since the original paper was published in 1978, I assume that the patent was
>awarded at approximately that time, which means that in approximately three
>years RSA will become public domain.  When that happens, anyone will be free
>to use the algorithm.
>
>A particular *program* that implements RSA, on the other hand, will remain
>protected by copyright.  Others will have to write their own programs from
>scratch--unless they get a license to use/modify that particular program.
>
>They will not be impeded in writing their program--they just won't be able
>to copy another program.
>
>
>Now, we can still argue over whether or not we like patents, in general, and
>what they should be applied to, but I don't accept that patents are
>necessarily so stifling as you make them out to be.
>
>
>-- 
>J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
>(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
>but my d*mn system wants a 
>*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"

The fundemental problem with both patents and copyrights is that they are
dependent on the owner of the patent or copyright to enforce it.  This seems
good when you are dealing with individuals agains individuals in the idealized
situations you usually hear about.  But the way are court system works, a
large company can pretty much ignore patents held by "small timers", until
the "small times" sell that patent to another big company, where they battle
it out in the court system.... Its raising the cost of everything, companies
like TI are making more money on they're patent litigation than they're
products.  The bottom line is WE are paying for all this litigation and
the lawers are the ones who are laughing...

-- 
                                        Yoram Yifrah -- uyyifrah@mcs.drexel.edu

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
                                               -- Howard Beal, UBS Network News