RE: [dvd-discuss]Does software really satisfy the requriments for Copyright?

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
...
> Algorithms are NOT patentable. The USSC ruled that they were 
> more like a 
> thing of nature and that was wise.

Ok, 'splain this one to me.  Patents are supposed to be for
inventions _or_discoveries_ (i.e. things of nature).  Drug
companies are being granted patents on gene sequences _that_
_come_from_nature_.  What are the grounds again that algorithms
are not patentable?  (and for gosh sake ... if you can patent
a "business process" why the h#$@ can't you patent an algorithm?!?!?)


> 
> Pragmatically there is no reason to patent algorithms either. 
> They are 
> merely clever ways to manipulate bits. 

Pragmatically there is no reason to patent devices either,
they are merely clever ways to manipulate matter ...


...
> Do you allow 
> someone to 
> patent generalizations of specific algorithms? 

Is the generalization obvious or non-obvious ;-)


>Does that mean 
> that the 
> first one patented infringes upon the generalization? How much of a 
> generalization does it have to be? (e.g., Generalization of binary 
> algorithm to general Galois Field?)

Unified Field Theory?

...
> 
> I contend that Trade Secrets and NDA are the proper form of 
> protection for 
> source code. 

Granted.

>As for object code, the what is the purpose of 
> copyrighting 
> it? What does one wish to accomplish WRT to object code? What 
> is the end 
> goal? Is full copyright really necessary to further that goal?

Nope.

> 
> >And I say no to patents under the current PTO policies. Computer 
> programming 
> >is appling a subset of a finite number of algorithms. Most, 
> if not all, 
> of the 
> >basic algorithms have been know for decades with plenty of 
> prior art. 
> Nothing 
> >much is new under the sun.

(hey, didn't I start this off by declaring that software _is_
something new under the sun, neither device nor expression?)


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!