|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
The content is copyright.
But the content is not patented.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
Of course copyright does not cover functionality since this would be same as
claiming a patent on the concept of mousetraps instead of a better mousetrap or
a particular way to design a mousetrap.
You can't copyright the operation addition since you get copyright on a specific
expression and not the concept. You can get patents on concepts, but not if it
cause total preemption of the area.
The thing with the software is math argument is that if patents is allowed on
the math itself then you without fail run into preemption. The mess with
software patents is exactly due them being granted on stuff that mathematically
skilled can prove is mathematical and cause of absolute preemption if allowed.
The Laywers wing it by using case law that describes a way of operation of the
computer that is not possible if you ask the mathematically skilled. You end
with the current mess when a proper patent search cost multitudes more than
developing the software without guidance and also multitudes more than even the
most profitable software ever make in sales. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- This is correct! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:48 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 10:36 PM EDT |
Also, software is not the only thing protected by both. Books
are (a new form of pop-up book v. the content of the pop-up
book).
In this example, if Infringer Bob copies of physical object's structure with
blank paper, he's infringing on the patent, but not the copyright. If Infringer
Alice copies the text, she's infringing on the copyright, but not the patent.
With software, if Infringer Alice copies the text, she's infringing on both at
once - it's not the same. The book can be made using another methodology;
software patents often prevent any other methodology that leads to the same
results.
Images are (compression v. content).
Images are not; an image is what is seen, and the copyright has nothing to do
with the physical implementation - canvas, ink, pencil, printer, monitor,
copyright always applies and applies alone. I would have to believe that image
compression patents are software patents; I'm going to call that a circular
argument. As a separate point, the image compression algorithm can be applied
to other data, meaning that any violations of one or the other are essentially
independent.
Music is (compression v. content).
Refer to Image, and substitute audio based words for visual based words.
Manufacturing processes are (if you copy the instruction sheet). The process
itself isn't protected by copyright, an expression of the process is. If
Infringer Bob duplicates the process entirely, he's only committing patent
infringement. If Infringer Alice copies the sheet, that's, at most, only
copyright infringement.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
Please read the comments by the other people who replied to you. Copyright and
Patent are intended for entirely different things, but they are not in any sense
"complementary".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Tuesday, June 12 2012 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
How a book is bound and its contents are completely
independent of each other. Same goes for sound/image formats
vs the content. I could publish a book without the patented
binding, and it would still be the same book. Same goes for
the sound and images. If software, however, infringes a
patent, it has to change to remove the infringement. This
would be like (to elaborate on a sibling post) telling JK
Rowling she had to change the plot of her stories because I
owned the patent on stories with a boy wizard in them.
However, if I told her she couldn't use the binding method
she had been using because I owned the patent, her story
wouldn't need to change.
As for manufacturing processes, IIRC, there is dispute as to
whether they should be patentable too, just like software.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
---
Always a lurker, so you will never see this signature. But you are. What?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
