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

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter D. Junger [mailto:junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 12:38 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]Does software really satisfy the requriments
> for Copyright? 
> 
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> : 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.
> 
> I should have added that in the case of most software patents the
> claim is that the patent is on a new device, but the only actual
>  device is just an old, general purpose computer, albeit configured 
> in a new manner.  The software patent in such cases is not on the
> physical device as such, but on the configuration of the device, 
> which is equivalent to a process.
> 

... or, as I said, a "virtual" device -- one whose existance lies
in cyberspace instead of physical space.

However, my real argument is that neither patent nor copyright
is truely appropriate for software and everybody seems merely to
be addressing my addendum that >>>of the two current options<<<
I prefer patent over copyright, and ignoring the meat of the
initial proposition.

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

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