[ILUG] Patent-VS-Copyright issues

[Justin Mason]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Niall O Broin writes:
> On Wednesday 19 May 2004, jmcc at hackwatch.com (John McCormac) wrote:
> 
> >Good examples. The phrase that sums up the difference between patents 
> >and copyrights is:
> >
> >Patents protect the idea and copyright protects the expression of the idea.
> 
> That's not correct. You CAN'T patent an idea, but rather the implementation of
> an idea. For instance, one famous case was Polaroid vs Kodak for instant
> pictures. Polaroid didn't have a patent on the idea of instant pictures, but
> rather on their processes to provide same (the implementation of the idea).
> 
> However, it must be said that the U.S. P.T.O. seems to grant patents on ideas
> now e.g. one click shopping. And the problem with patents is not just whether
> they are valid or not, but the huge cost of fighting.

That's exactly what the current problem is.   *Nowadays*, in certain
fields, one *can* patent the idea alone. (Well, the idea, as long as it's
implemented in a computer programming language, that is.)

Consider the MS "word processing doc as XML and XSD" patent.   That's
effectively an "idea" being patented, as far as I can see.

(The 'traditional' patent style, patenting a specific physical
implementation, is still reasonable IMO.)

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFArG3kQTcbUG5Y7woRAp+qAKDYM7z66OUUeciIBskI/Vz3YuoIggCg3FRf
VpNPjE2FEUP2ykLUjap0DAM=
=mMWt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----