I was simply pointing out the ridiculous argument I've seen some
present.
To them, working around a patent - the act in and of itself with
nothing else involved - is clearly wrong. Some view copyrights in the same
way... working around a copyright is clearly wrong.
They don't seem to
want to accept that neither patents nor copyrights protect the heart of the
idea. They don't want to accept that patents are only supposed to protect a
particular implementation of the idea. They don't want to accept that
copyrights are only supposed to protect a particular expression of the
idea.
Personally I think that's the key battleground. So long as those
of us fighting to keep a balance between the exchange of a monopoly in return
for release of the idea keep that point firmly in mind and keep reminding the
Lawmakers of that: we stand a chance of ensuring things don't go overboard on
the protection side.
But if we forget those two points and we keep
conflating the idea with the implementation or expression - just like they want
us to - then we could very well loose when some new Act is worded in such a way
as to remove those limitations.
In a recent article, even P.J.
said:
The point is, if Oracle really wants to own and control an
idea, it needs to do so with patents, not copyrights.
I sure
hope she really meant "... control an implementation of an idea" and not
really the idea as embodied in the knowledge, the concept.
Or perhaps the
Laws have already changed enough that my understanding of what patents are
supposed to protect have totally been thrown out the window.
There's a
reason the patent office used to require a prototype. And a prototype would
certainly limit protection to the particular
implementation.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure the Supreme's invalidate
patents if they are defined too broadly - protecting the idea, rather than a
specific implementation.
So... unless I'm really out to lunch on my
understanding, I'm pretty sure I have the core issue identified in this
particular war to enslave knowledge.
I sure wish someone fighting
(practicing in front of the Supremes) to keep sanity in the IP realm starts to
focus on clarification of protecting the implementation/expression of the idea
vs protecting the knowledge of the idea.
I would love to see the
Supreme's use that explicit wording some time and clarify. It's already encoded
in Copyright
Law:
... fixed in any tangible medium of
expression
Not that copyright police seem to want to ignore that in
some cases:
Really? The language is in a protected form? Like a dictionary
(words of the language) combined with an Encyclopedia (rules on how the language
is used)?
Unfortunately Patent Law is not so clear and it would be nice if
Congress added the term "implementation". I think the term is reasonably
construed through the requirement of proper disclosure. But without the
clarification, there are those Lawyers that will always argue patents apply to
more then just the implementation.
As it stands "idea or process" alone
is too easy to be able to refer to something more then the
implementation.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
