Re: [OT-ish] IGPL - Idea General Public Licence
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:47:38 -0500,
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> wrote in message
<[🔎] 87fzjlbazp.fsf@toncho.dhh.gt.org>:
> Hubert Chan writes:
> > Ideas cannot be copyrighted. In order to protect an idea, you need
> > to patent it...
>
> You are not supposed to be able to patent an idea either.
> Unfortunately the distinction between an idea and an invention escapes
> the USPTO (and most judges as well).
..in civilized countries however, ideas can be patented if, and
_only_ if: 1. they indeed are new, _and_ 2. provide a reproducible
technical effect _and_ 3. this reproducible technical effect is a
product of _either_ 4a. a new method (such as an hand grenade for
fishing) _or_ 4b. a new tool (such a laser gun for fishing), _and_
if 5. the anyone reasonably knowledgeable with prior art in the
relevant technical field, can reproduce the technical effect by
combining prior art with the patented idea _for_ 6. commercial or
governmental use.
..fair use is allowed, as is innovation in the field, a new
competing idea to (re)produce the same technical effect, must
be _different_ in either methodics _or_ introduce a new tool.
..whether or not patentable ideas are viable commercially, is
consequently _irrelevant_ in all civilized jurisdictions, as
commerciability is not a technological effect on anything
..this means that "software patents" can only cover methods or
tools if they are part of the means to reproduce the technical
effect, because and _only_ because said method or tool needs
_that_ software, and is null and void as soon as anyone writes
_another_ piece of software to replace "_that_" software.
..ditto for "biz patents" covering business methodics, the ideas
in these can be used legally by copycat competitors to beat the
original out of business. And the copycats are usually denied
access to the original, say, franchise chains resources, such
as logos, again legally.
..furthermore, anyone may use, say, IBM logo, to, say, organize
a boycott on IBM, or Tux to lobby a ban on Linux, as long as it
is clear that the boycott lobbyists does not use said logos to
represent themselves as IBM or pro-Linux, if they use said logos
to represent themselves as anti-IBM or anti-Linux, or for spite
or ridicule, this is all 'fair use' under the law; Microsoft
may _legally_ use Tux to ask the American Public "You saw the
Twin Towers fall; Who has cost America the most, Microsoft,
al-Quaeda or this stupid bird?". ;-)
..however, _expressions_ of ideas, such as a book, or a logo, or
software, are covered by copyright law, and can only be covered
by copyright law. "2+2" is just _one_ way to express "4", and
it is an _old_ way.
.._expressions_ of ideas, such as books, or logos, or software
covered by copyright law, are usually also covered by contract
law, because most people don't write everything damned they need,
they buy stuff, and usually under contracts. Contract law allows
the Microsoft EULA to limit their buyers, their rights under copyright
law to use what they paid for, and under the GPL, it is used to
expand some rights under copyright law and to limit other rights,
under both copyright law and contract law; "You may sell my software
under the GPL, if and only if, you give me your source so I can sell
your software under the GPL.".
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: