Re: [dvd-discuss]Does software really satisfy the requriments for Copyright?

["Peter D. Junger" <junger(at)samsara.law.cwru.edu>]

Richard Hartman writes:

: btw: on the copyright vs. patent argument, I tend to believe
: that software -- in general -- is "most like" a device (albiet
: one that has a non-physical state) and deserves patent protection
: rather than copyright.  That said, the patent process both 
: a) moves too slowly and b) protects too long to be the appropriate
: protection mechanism.

Since processes are patentable and not copyrightable, the argumenht
that software can be patented but not copyrighted should turn
on the fact that software is a process, not that it is a device.
(Devices are not patentable _an sich_.)

The Supreme Court has held, however, that the algorithms that
are implemented in software are not patentable.  Unfortunately
the Federal Circuit that hears the appeals in patent cases thinks
that it has overruled the Supreme Court's decision and the Supreme
Court has not yet kicked the Federal Circuit's butt and told
it that it can't overrule Supreme Court decisions, although
it will probably do so some day and, with any luck, that will be
the end of software patents.
 
--
Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH
 EMAIL: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu    URL:  http://samsara.law.cwru.edu   
        NOTE: junger@pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu no longer exists