Re: Is anyone packaging `lame' ?
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:39:23PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The existing European software patents were granted based on the
> assumption that you can differentiate between a computer program and
> its underlying ideas. I think such a distinction is indeed possible,
> and granting theese patents does not contradict Article 52.
I am curious, what do you have in mind?
I think granting a patent on a design for a physical object is fine.
In your example of a garden hose, I wouldn't grant such a patent on the
basis that -- besides being trivial -- it is a construction that can
and does occur in Nature, making that more of a "discovery" than
anything else. I would grant patents on plug designs for such a
device, though.
On the other hand, an algorithm -- which is from my POV the crux of the
issue when talking about software patents -- is "just" an idea. It can
be hard to come by, but it is still an idea. It's expression as a
computer program is copyrightable, but I do not think that it is sane
to grant patents on the idea itself on the grounds of discernibility.
There are many examples of algorithms which perform much better when
specialized or "trivial" modifications are made to them. How far
reaching would software patents be? Would these "trivial
modifications" be allowed? Or would they be covered by the original
patents?
These "trivial changes" are the subject of countless papers on
conferences. There are such changes which do in fact advance the
field, but then there are changes which I could perhaps describe as
trivial optimizations. It is perhaps that fact which tells me that
patents on algorithms are a bad idea: if people a willing to present
real trivialities as "advancement in the field" and reviewers all over
the world are willing to accept these papers for publication, why
should I be willing to accept in advance that patents won't be granted
for "trivial ideas"?
Back on topic, I think copyright provides the author with enough
protection to make the development activity a profitable one. I
honestly do not see the need for patents in this area.
Marcelo
Reply to: