[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Software Patents

From: dt
Subject: Re: Software Patents
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:22:00 -0700
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Jun 17, 11:32 am, rjack <rjack@com> wrote:
> During the current era, the cultural future is going to be heavily
> influenced by the debate over the protection (or lack thereof) for
> intellectual property concerning digital matters.
> It is instructive to review the legal history of the patent-copyright
> dichotomy concerning computer program protection. Most telling is this
> Supreme Court ruling in 1978:
> "To a large extent our conclusion is based on reasoning derived from
> opinions written before the modern business of developing programs for
> computers was conceived. The youth of the industry may explain the
> complete absence of precedent supporting patentability. Neither the
> dearth of precedent, nor this decision, should therefore be interpreted
> as reflecting a judgment that patent protection of certain novel and
> useful computer programs will not promote the progress of science and
> the useful arts, or that such protection is undesirable as a matter of
> policy. Difficult questions of policy concerning the kinds of programs
> that may be appropriate for patent protection and the form and duration
> of such protection can be answered by Congress on the basis of current
> empirical data not equally available to this tribunal."[FN19].
> [FN19] Articles assessing the merits and demerits of patent protection
> for computer programming are numerous. See, e. g., Davis, Computer
> Programs [437 U.S. 584, 596]   and Subject Matter Patentability, 6
> Rutgers J. of Computers and Law 1 (1977), and articles cited therein, at
> 2 n. 5. Even among those who favor patentability of computer programs,
> there is questioning of whether the 17-year protection afforded by the
> current Patent Act is either needed or appropriate. See id., at 20 n.
> 133.; PARKER v. FLOOK, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
> This was an open invitation by the Supreme Court directed to Congress
> requesting that Congress simply do its job --- *LEGISLATE*.
> Twenty-nine years later Congress is still sitting on its collective ass
> while the rest of the World moves on. Did you ever wonder why the U.S.
> is losing its competitive edge in the global struggle? Well it is not
> because of Congress. It is because the American people passively sit by
> and allow this kind of malfeasance to fester.
> I have written my legislative representatives concerning intellectual
> property in the Digital Age. Everyone who has an interest in the debate,
> regardless of where their opinion falls, should express their opinion to
> their  respective congressional representatives. Why wait for another
> twenty-nine years for those non-elected, life-time appointed Supremes to
> decide the peoples' business?
> Those who don't communicate with their representatives and then vote
> have no right to subsequently bitch.
> rjack

The SCOTUS members are better off staying away from "software patent"
they made enough mess already as far as US patent system is concerned
(EBay, KSR etc.)
It's a useless debate anyway, cause there is no workable definition of
"software patent" - such a definition is simply impossible

Read this FAQ to clear your brains:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]