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

[mickey <mickeym(at)mindspring.com>]

Stephen L. Johnson wrote:

>Richard H. Hartman was heard to have written:
>
>>The biggest problem is attempting to shoehorn a New Thing (tm)
>>into laws written for other things entirely.  There is much debate
>>on whether software is expression or device (to be protected by
>>copyright or patent).  Well ... it has aspects of both, and potentially
>>in greater or lesser degree depending upon the software in question.
>>Whoever said "there is nothing new under the sun" was quite wrong,
>>sometimes there _is_ something new, and it deserves new and unique
>>treatment instead of attempting deal with it as if it were something
>>else.
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>In short and speaking strictly theoretically, I think that copyright and 
>patents are both appropriate for software. Copyright for protecting the 
>implementation of an idea, and patents for protecting truly unique and novel 
>algorithm. But we've got do deal with the real world and not a theoretical one.
>

I have to disagree on the patentability of software. Copyrightable, 
maybe. Patentable, no.

Software does nothing. It is not a device. It has no functionality. 
Software is text. Verbs are not actions.

As I see it, the patent process stopped working when it was no longer 
necessary to "reduce to practice."
 From there, any method for doing anything could be patentable, without 
proving anything worked, or that
the 'inventor' had actually done anything.

mickeym