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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen L. Johnson [mailto:sjohnson@monsters.org]
...
> Right now the Patent Office is awarding patents for trivial 
> things that don't 
> deserve one. Patents for software that any competent 
> programmer would come up  
> if they were required to develop it. Given the same task to a 
> large number of 
> programmer, a significant number of them come up with a 
> similar solution. 
> There goes the patent requirement of being non-obvious.
> 

This argument, however, is merely an argument against the
current implementation of the patent process and not against
patent protection per se.

You will have no greater agreement from anyone that the patent
office is being run by a bunch of morons who can't tell an
original idea (and therefore can not tell a derivative and
obvious idea) from the hole in their heads.

Be that as it may, software is more akin to a device than
it is to expression and patent is more applicable than
copyright.  That the patent review process is flawed is
not germane since there are horrible problems with the
copyright process as well (and both should be corrected).


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!