Re: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

I think it was 1986 when they "reformed" patent law.......also the notion 
that software or algorithms are NOT patentable has been been eroding since 
that time. The USSC's reasoning that algorithms about that time was 
remarkably lucid...(e.g., diamond)




mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/02/2002 08:53 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration



How long ago was the "reduce to practice" requirement dropped? That 
would seem to be the underlying error that allowed things like "method" 
patents, then software patents, and now "text=technology" issues.

mickeym

Dean Sanchez wrote:

>I also don't have a problem with patenting a specific implementation of 
idea that results in a physical object. The founders envisioned patents as 
more important - that's why originally the timeframe on patents were 
longer than copyrights.  A patent was the working, physical expression of 
an idea.   I do have a problem with the current patent process that allows 
the patenting of ideas without implementation and the patenting of 
algorithms (software).  Thus you get such things as 'submarine' patents 
that are an impediment to progress; just the opposite  result of what was 
intended by the founders.  The patent office used to reject perpetual 
motion machines as people were unable to provide a working example.  You 
would probably be able to get one accepted, now.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mickeym [mailto:mickeym@mindspring.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:34 PM
>To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>Subject: [dvd-discuss] Celebs against shorter patent duration
>
>
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64584,00.html
>
>I wasn't aware that there was a bill to shorten the patent duration for 
>drugs, but it doesn't surprise me who else (besides the drug co's) would 
>be against it. I still can't reconcile the huge difference between 
>patent vs copyright duration. I suppose I'm actually okay with the 17 
>year patent, in contrast to the 95+ year copyright.
>
>mickeym
>
>