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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 15 May 2002 at 15:34, Richard Hartman wrote:

From:           	Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	"'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-
discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss]Does software really satisfy the requriments 
for
 	Copyright?
Date sent:      	Wed, 15 May 2002 15:34:37 -0700
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> ...
> > Algorithms are NOT patentable. The USSC ruled that they were 
> > more like a 
> > thing of nature and that was wise.
> 
> Ok, 'splain this one to me.  Patents are supposed to be for
> inventions _or_discoveries_ (i.e. things of nature).  

YOu can patent hybrids but not plants discovered in nature. Discoveries have 
never been patentable before.

>Drug
> companies are being granted patents on gene sequences _that_
> _come_from_nature_. 


And could not until recently now did they? Just as copyright wasn't for 120yrs 
until recently. Pamela Samuelson calls 1998 the "Great Intellectual Property 
Grab of 1998". A patent on a gene sequence is a patent upon facts. Facts cannot 
be patented. THEREFORE there can be no patent upon a gene sequence. Q.E.D. 
Using a patent monopoly to encourage research is a perversion of patents and 
research both. 

> What are the grounds again that algorithms
> are not patentable?  (and for gosh sake ... if you can patent
> a "business process" why the h#$@ can't you patent an algorithm?!?!?)
> 

Not until recently you could not patent a business method. What is a busines 
method? Procedures? A way of doing things. And why should you be able to 
do so? MORE nonsense patents bought by special interests.

Hey an algorithm is just a way of manipulating bits.  It provides no progress 
in of itself. Look at it this way. The COoley Tukey FFT algorithm says nothing 
more than "Hey. Don't add and multply the numbers THIS way do it that way so 
you don't have to compute all those extra terms that cancel or combine" I 
really can't see the rational for providing a monopoly or how one can enforce 
it.

In other words (N-1)*M = NM-M is an algorithm for doing FAST multiplication. Is 
it patentable? Why should repeated appliation of it be?
> 
> > 
> > Pragmatically there is no reason to patent algorithms either. 
> > They are 
> > merely clever ways to manipulate bits. 
> 
> Pragmatically there is no reason to patent devices either,
> they are merely clever ways to manipulate matter ...
> 

That's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. THere is a big difference 
between the manipulation of a bit which has NO physical existance vs bulk 
matter which does. The electrons in the computer are only a representation of 
the bits.

> 
> ...
> > Do you allow 
> > someone to 
> > patent generalizations of specific algorithms? 
> 
> Is the generalization obvious or non-obvious ;-)


Hopefully useful....It comes as no surprise to me that FFTs can be done over 
Galois fields since C and G are both fields. Nice exercises but not much of a 
generalization.

> 
> 
> >Does that mean 
> > that the 
> > first one patented infringes upon the generalization? How much of a 
> > generalization does it have to be? (e.g., Generalization of binary 
> > algorithm to general Galois Field?)
> 
> Unified Field Theory?
> 

Can't patent laws of physics or their representations. 

> ...
> > 
> > I contend that Trade Secrets and NDA are the proper form of 
> > protection for 
> > source code. 
> 
> Granted.
> 
> >As for object code, the what is the purpose of 
> > copyrighting 
> > it? What does one wish to accomplish WRT to object code? What 
> > is the end 
> > goal? Is full copyright really necessary to further that goal?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> > 
> > >And I say no to patents under the current PTO policies. Computer 
> > programming 
> > >is appling a subset of a finite number of algorithms. Most, 
> > if not all, 
> > of the 
> > >basic algorithms have been know for decades with plenty of 
> > prior art. 
> > Nothing 
> > >much is new under the sun.
> 
> (hey, didn't I start this off by declaring that software _is_
> something new under the sun, neither device nor expression?)
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!