When IBM released the original PC it also released exact circuit diagrams and bios source code. This allowed other companies to create fully functional clones and not break IBM patents.
My clone PC had various inverted logic gates to keep complete functionality but be a different design.
It came with a single bios chip, which, when disassembled very closely resembled the IBM bios. In fact there were 6 prom sockets to allow copied IBM proms to be installed for full functionality (which our friendly asian supplier sent in a separate delivery).
This is what made the PC universal.
The same was done with the IBM PC-AT.
This seems so easy, too. You should be able to copyright your code, but if someone else comes along and writes code differently and gets the same thing done, so be it. The idea that a patent is simple code seems abhorrent.
Let's set out plain and simple that you can't copy one another's code. That's plagiarism. We can all agree that plagiarism is bad. But you can't patent what a machine does. Computers are metamachines, and they can do all sorts of cool stuff. That shouldn't mean that you can patent what it does. You should be protected that your code can't be copied, and you should be able to verify in court that indeed your code happened first, etc. But imagine if the concept of web surfing were patented. Or word processing were patented. Or spreadsheets. It's just not right.
"imagine if the concept of web surfing were patented. Or word processing were patented. Or spreadsheets"
You just gave me great ideas. Get ready to see me suing all the ISPs.
In my opinion, software is protected legally right now by one thing: Copyright of the code itself, *and* it's resulting programs that are created because of that code (when it is compiled into an executable).
This is where Software becomes a pain in the arse, because software can perform a process... But I think one of the biggest problems with software is that anyone could do the same thing independently and then fight amongst themselves of who can "patent the process" that the software addresses.
Processes like Amazon's "one click shopping" patent are not really ideas that should be able to be patented, because any reasonable web developer could develop the process on their own, writing totally different *CODE* to back it up.
If I wrote a page that allowed one-click shopping/checkout without actually looking at any of the code that Amazon uses, and it could be independently verified that the code is not a "copy" of what Amazon does, what am I infringing upon? Wouldn't that be considered "reverse engineering", and thus be protected?
The biggest issue with software that really causes these lawsuits in the first place, is that software can be written in different ways, to do the *SAME THING*.
It's basically the first person to race to the US Patent offices to get a patent on the RESULT of that programming that makes the money. Hence, the Result you get (like in my previous example, one click checkout) could be arrived at by different means, but since "one click checkout" itself is an *IDEA*, the *METHOD* (the actual code) by which you get to it should copyrighted, but not the *idea* itself be patentable.
In other words: as long as the code is different enough to withstand scrutiny, who cares about one click shopping? Wouldn't it be healthier to have competition putting out their own rendition of an idea?
i would also argue about how it looks as well, as in cases of windows gui and apple gui or whatever.
...
I read through the article few times, and the whole thing is still as confusing as hell...
I'm interested in how it'll turn out though, although it's very likely to turn into a very, very long battle.
In a nutshell: I loan you a brick with a string (license) attached that I still retain ownership and distribution rights to it. You sell it to your neighbor. I complain and take it to court. You argue in court that it's not really a "brick" until it's put into a wall. I argue it's still a brick; my brick, and you cannot sell it without my permission. You argue it's not really a brick until it's used to build a wall. See where this is going?
f-ing hilarious! Talking out of the side(s) of their mouth(s) again. I'm not a MS-hater, but they're doing themselves in better than anyone else could possibly do. So, on one side, it's ok to reuse AT&T code outside of licensing, but not ok for someone else to use theirs in a similar manner (if it's really being used at all). Kindergarten. And they wonder why the courts tend to dislike them so much.
Joseffer is making a real stretch of his argument. The only viable argument I see is proving or disproving the relationship of the component to a tangible process. It has nothing to do with the computer hardware unless the component specifically requires a specific hardware configuration. A real stretch. Hopefully Alito's council will see through that. Otherwise, expect a very long, drawn out case with a very obtuse outcome.
If you take Suitors dialog as an example, and smoke enough crack, after you exhale, you could summon the rationale that the relationship of software to physical media is no different than that for movies on film/dvd or music on cd or an ipod. Let's patent them all! Yeah! (high fives around the room).
Isn't a patent something for your ideas? Is software your idea? If so, WHAT constitutes this idea? Is the specific combination of repeating 1s and 0s the actual patent?
Thank God, no matter what the outcome of this case, for once it APPEARS that the whole patent reform controversy will at least be clarified in the US Supreme Court. I am sick and tired of the vagueness of software patents meaning anything and everything in a court of law. It has become sickening. Even if the SC rules against Microsoft, this will be a huge positive for the country where software patents have been undefined for so many decades...
I couldn't agree more, bourgeois. No matter which way it goes, clarity and definition are a key outcome. In fact, that they took this case seems like they know this is important to clarify.
The oddity of this case to me is that if object code isn't patentable, what's to say that someone can't then post windows, and use a compiler yourself? Or if someone got the code overseas, posted it, and sold their new "windows compiler/unzipper" thingy for $10.
AT&T is saying that it made the voice-activation component, and MSFT violated its use by distributing it internationally. Funny thing is that if this were reversed, they'd be arguing the reverse points.
Thus, we hope the Court does indeed supply clarity, as there is none.
No. You cannot patent an idea.
"A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion."
refer to http://www.uspto.gov/web...eral/index.html#whatpat
The gray area we are seeing in the courts is not the "law" but the interpretation of it. The key aspect being the patentability of "processes", but not "concepts". Software can be argued to be either, sort of like statistics, it can be bent to fit the needs of the debate. Hopefully, this case will help establish clearer boundaries for future reference and avoid some of the complete stupidity we've all seen over the past 5 years.
"Isn't a patent something for your ideas?"
No patents are for physical things. When you patent your thing you get exlusive rights to make that thing, in exchange for publishing the patent and sharing the ideas.
The current practice is to allow software patents if they are worded so that they describe a thing, a general purpose computer, doing some job.
So now we have a huge number of patents for the same general purpose thing being used for specific purposes.
It's like patenting one of the many ways you can use a stick.
"A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion."
I think USPTO is full of craps. What's with all those lawsuits in the past year or two? What the patents trolls did was just hold on to patents and sue the one who actually has the product on the market. The trolls don't have any products themselves, so it just an idea.
Actually, if you're referring to cases like NTP vs RIM, NTP purchased the patents via acquisition. They didn't get the patent themselves. IP acquisition is a big business in and of itself. If you check out the recent comments from USPTO, they are severely cracking down on patent claims now. Their goal is to reject 2x the number of 2006. The intent being to force people to whip their claims into reality or deal with more pain. I think it's long overdue.
I don't believe Microsoft holds a patent on Microsoft Vista, it holds a copyright, which is the appropriate protection for that sort of written material ( code ).
Even if Microsoft holds a patent something within Vista, the copyright on each sub-feature within its system, allows them not to release the source code.
Besides open source is an optional thing, at least to a point, all these open source licenses were made after open source was popular. In the end any software can be closed or open source, if its closed it would be hard to prove it contained open source code without making said evidence not allowed in court ( say you decompiled the source, well part of an legal binding agreement, says you cannot do this ).
Sort of trying to get money from your drug dealer, in a court of law,who sold you fake drugs :-)
(cough-cough) sort of. They actually retain a "trademark" on "Windows" and "Windows Vista". A copyright is on the work itself, not the name or the symbols used to represent it. Under current law, you can indeed patent software if it can be shown to directly manipulate a tangible process or action. By itself you cannot patent a piece of programming code, but you can copyright it. If the code performs some tangible action or calculates some tangible result, *and* it can be shown (proven/demonstrated) to therefore be a unique "process" it can be patented. It's *that* fine line that needs to be explored more thoroughly by the courts.
Also, regarding other posts I've seen on the notion that failure to patent means you must publish source code... completely false. Why would anyone be force or required to share their "trade secrets" even if they aren't patented? First, you'd have to spend a ba-zillion dollars in court arguing the merits of a "trade secret". I won't even go there.
The beauty of this argument is that everyone seems to be conceding that object code is not patentable. Everyone seems to think it's simply the efficacy of products that are patentable. If that's true, Microsoft just argued its way out of being allowed to close its own source code.
(reads comment again, smashes forehead on keyboard) deleted comment...
I almost smashed my head on the keyboard too. They are indeed arguing themselves into a corner over this particular case. However, the ramifications are huge for everyone else. One very key technology that stands to gain/lose the most is software licensing management. (i.e. Macrovision). While this case won't create a requirement for source code to be released, it could affect the legal defensiveness of specific features in software products. Not to be overly dramatic, but read the previous sentence again and then ponder that for a moment.
Knowing that software is not a parallel to other mediums, the argument by Olsen that code "isn't software" until installed on a computer is weird. That's like saying a vaccine isn't a vaccine until it's injected. Food isn't food until it's eaten. I'm trying not to laugh.
I think the point about installing on the pc is this tortuous argument that you can only patent software as a way of making a computer do a specific task. That is, a software patent is a patent on a specific configuration of the general purpose tool known as a computer.
Consequently, the patentable thing is the software + the hardware actually operating (or in operable state, i.e. installed) - and not any subset of those parts, or any predecessor.
Q: If
- person X has a patent on wheelbarrows, and
- person A sells you a wheeled axle, a bucket, and an automatic method that joins the bucket to the axle to person B;
... has either person A, or person B, infringed person X's patent?
Ruth
Ok guys, your comments are excellent, helped me understand this patent controversy (just a tip of the iceberg, I may add). Here is my question. if "software" is not a software until its installed how come the law enforcement agency can confiscate "pirated" versions of the "software" before it actually is installed- since according to what i understood Microsoft is arguing, the "software" only becomes such when its INSTALLED on the functioning computer. This is mind blowing (and I know there could be a question of copyright not just patents)
That's a different situation, legally. That's just possession of stolen property. If you are not authorized to possess the software, in any form (iso files, raw binaries on a hard disk, bits on an optical or magnetic disk, printed copies of the binary code even) it is considered theft in the eyes of the court.
As for not being software until it's installed, that's a crack-smoking argument. The same tack used to prove that a dog is simply a four-legged human with extra hair.
There are always two things to intellectual "property" - one is the underlying structured basis used by everyone who does intellectual work, the other one is my own, individually based realization of such a form which makes it "mine" and which is clearly discernable from every other individually realized form. - There are thousands of "menuets", "blues songs", "sinfonies", "sonnets", "novels" and so forth, but those of Bach, Beethoven, Ives, Shakespeare, Hemingway et cetera are clearly discernable from each other.
Could this be the case for "software" in the same way? YOU tell ME. I'm no programmer.
What is the basis for software? Is it the hardware alone? Or isn't it some basic structures used by everyone alike and THEN turned into something individual, discernable from every other code? I'm pretty sure the hardware is patented already, anyway.
So what are they talking about here? If the first basis is going to be "patented", then every TV station could sue everyone for using commonly established words that have been used in one of their talkshows. That would be bull. And in my eyes windows, mouse movement, even the desktop like display and so forth are some kind of basic structures which by now should be considered as part of the common treasure of culture - especially when considerating the development of computers, which is more like logarithmic and is speeding up all the time.
To me "patents" have always been something purely technical, like motors, vacuum cleaners steam engines and the like which didn't exist at all in this world before somebody invented them.
Besides, every author, every music that is older than 70 years - or something around - is opened to the public as part of the common cultural treasure.
And to be very clear: how many musicians and poets whose works are highly appreciated nowadays had to actually live an underdog style of life . . . and died in bitter poverty.
So there seems to be quite another facet to this matter - isn't it enought to be able to make a living on a modest, humble and unpretentious level? And to know that my thoughts and my work have found their place and use in the human society? What is this greed in us that makes us want to win the whole world and to have and have more and still have more? For what? Nobody ever drove to his funeral in a U-HAUL truck . . .
Think about it.
Score: 0
|