🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1iiiq8INNheh@gambier.rick.cs.ubc.ca>, w5y092@rick.cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Todd Leroux) writes:
|> 
|> I remember hearing somewhere that you cannot put a patent on a mathematical
|> formula.  Wouldn't compression programs fall into this category?  Just
|> a thought...
|> 

That's what we all thought. Unfortunately, the US Patent Office up until
very recently had a policy of NOT hiring computer competent staff. So, the
damage got done and thousands of stupid patents were given out simply
because they used a computer. To compound the problem, rather than saying
that this was an error, they are now pushing the idea of patents in software.
This has been pushed along greatly by patent lawers, who say that if an error
has been made with certain patents, then the  way to correct it is through
the courts. This, however, costs megabucks (although win or lose, the patent
lawers win).

Note, however, that you do not patent a program just as you don't patent,
say, a car. Rather, you patent a software technique. This is very frightening.
Given the current rate at which patents are being given out on software
techniques it is probable that anyone writing commercial software will spend
80% of their time doing patent searches. In addition, if a company SUSPECTS
that you violate one of their patents, they have the right to see your code
(it's the only way to prove you haven't violated their patent, and even then
it's not iron-clad). 

To see how far this has gone, witness the post from someone saying that there
company has a special office that they send anything to for patentability
evaluation (keystroke sequences even!). There are certainly good arguments
for patents as well as against, but if you make your living through programming
then you should at least read the various arguments about them and know about
the potential dangers to your future. In the long term, it appears that patents
may drive small concerns out, leaving only those companies with the money to
have hundreds of lawers making patent exchange agreements with other companies,
filing patent applications, and chasing patent violators.

For more information on computer patents, there is a moderated newsgroup
called comp.patents where you can hear both sides of the arguments (there
are even patent lawers who post to the group).

If you are opposed to the notion of patents on software techniques, then
you could become a member of the League for Programming Freedom (sorry,
don't have details at hand, there was an article in CACM last year on patents
which talks about the LPF).


-- 
Afzal Ballim	             |BITNET,EARN,MHS,X.400: afzal@divsun.unige.ch
 ISSCO, University of Geneva |UUCP: mcsun!divsun.unige.ch!afzal
 54 route des Acacias	     |JANET: afzal%divsun.unige.ch@uk.ac.ean-relay
 CH-1227 GENEVA,Switzerland  |CSNET,ARPA: afzal%divsun.unige.ch@relay.cs.net