🚀 go-pugleaf

> In article <3enqb7$mc1@xcalibur.IntNet.net>,
> arl@news.IntNet.net (Al Lipscomb) writes:

> Sean Eric Fagan (sef@kithrup.com) wrote:

> : In article <3end5q$l32@xcalibur.IntNet.net>,
> : Al Lipscomb <arl@news.IntNet.net> wrote:
>
> [ remark reguarding posting size removed and noted]
>
> : >After all there is not great deal of difference between a copy
> : >right and a patent in terms of what you are protecting
>
> : There is a great deal of difference between a patent and a copyright.  The
> : fact that you think there is not shows that you don't really know what
> : you're talking about.
>
> Patent: "A writting securing exclusive right to an invention or discovery"
>
> Copyright: "The exclusive right to print or produce, given for a limited
> number of years to an author, artist, etc.
>
> The concept of both is to provide protection to the creator of an item.
> A patent is used for processes such as the algorithum in question. A
> copyright is generaly used to protect the actual expression of a work,
> such as the actual code used to express the algorithum. The patent is the
> stronger protection.
>
> What you are protecting (as qualified in my original statment) is
> intended to generalize the two concepts into the protection of the
> individuals or companies work.

> ...

I'm not clear on the attributions above, but here is another view.

If a person or company invents or discovers something and they keep it
private then it's difficult to use it without competitors possibly learning
of it and "stealing" it.  So, the government provides ways to register the
thing and this provides for legal protection (patent rights) and allows
the public to know of its existence and of it's owner if one should desire
to license it for use.

Why the ownership of the thing should expire is beyond me.  Imagine if the
deed to your home expired after 30 years, so others could begin to use it.
Even if the patent only applies to a design of something it is still one's
property.  It's scary to think of someone patenting a really nifty
algorithm, but if they invented it they should get some credit.

If someone creates a work of literature the creator registers with the
government for protection of the right to copy (copyright) to prevent
the work from being "stolen" (copied or otherwise used by someone else
without permission).

It seems to me that the patent is the real thing signifying of ownership
to something and that a copyright is a subsidiary right which is most
relevant to literary, musical, or other similar works which can be
expressed in copyable form (ink on paper, electrons on disk, etc.).

Perhaps every invention, discovery or other work should be patented and
the copyright would automatically be a part of that.  Then the right to
copy could be licensed or sold separately from the ownership of the thing.

That would mean that for any software invention (for the inventiveness
of the mind is used to create these things) would need to be patented.
Of course, there would have to be stringent tests to determine who
really created the thing.  We can't have people patenting XOR when they
didn't invent it.  Nor can we have people patenting mathematics when
they didn't create it.  And, there should be a way for someone to create
a thing, patent it and still allow for public use as though it were in
the public domain (a la GPL).

They're just ideas.  Don't let 'em scare ya.  :-)


Mark S. Hathaway       <hathawa2@marshall.edu>