Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9151 misc.int-property:540 comp.unix.bsd:5714 Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!virtualnews.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors. Message-ID: <16862.Sep2705.07.5792@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 27 Sep 92 05:07:57 GMT References: <1992Sep24.140807.20755@rwwa.COM> <1992Sep25.185314.8872@gvl.unisys.com> <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> Organization: IR Lines: 32 In article <1992Sep26.161204.24573@rwwa.COM> witr@rwwa.com writes: > It seems to me that to claim that patents *should not* apply to software > involves some claim that software doesn't deserve protection as > intellectual property. Software is protected by copyright. There is good reason to believe that ``process,'' within the context of patent law, means solely ``physical process.'' According to the courts, mental processes are not patentable; laws of nature and mathematical algorithms, even when applied to particular fields of technology, are not patentable; business methods are not patentable. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on what are usually called ``software patents.'' My favorite argument that mental processes *should not* be patentable is that there is no way to tell when two mental processes are the same. Indeed, the Patent Office has often failed to detect that the subject of a mental process patent is the same as a process in the prior art, or a mathematical algorithm, or even a previous patent. Other people have other arguments that algorithms and software *should not* be patentable. None of them are based on the claim that software is always obvious (or old). > If something like patents > are not available to software writers then the only avaliable protection > (unless you eliminate property rights en-toto) is secrecy. Protection is not the purpose of intellectual property law! Read prep.ai.mit.edu:pub/lpf/laf-fallacies.texi. ---Dan