Slashdot Mirror
Software Patents Compared to Hard Patents
Arie writes "The Slate discusses the obvious differences between patenting an algorithm and a drug. The article introduces the Fence test, which basically says that if you can physically protect your property, you have a case patenting it. In addition, it claims that the burden on a programmer identifying whether he is infringing on a patent or not involves excessive research burden, essentially to the inherent lack of physical boundaries. Obviously the article starts off with mentioning the patent dispute between RIM and NTL."
Stupid article anyway, but Taco had it this morning.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
...so Zonk couldn't dupe it.
... on a technology news site.
Software (loose definition): "Written coded commands that tell a computer what tasks to perform" Software is in otherwords language, so why, oh why are we trying to patent language? Would you think it's right to patent a love novel, a pirate story a crime thriller? If you're a belly crawling, ground living, amoral layer yes. Software should not be patentable, it should however be copyrightable. Software+Patents = Stupidity
Patents are not ideas, they are for things.
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Laws about ownership are for things. Patents always protect ideas. For instance, an electronic circuit is not a thing, it's an idea, just like an algorithm. Circuits have always been patentable. I really fail to see why algorithms should not be patentable, so long as they are novel and nonobvious. Can you explain why it should be possible to patent an idea for a better monkey wrench, but not an idea for a better algorithm?