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

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

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.

--
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