|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT |
You confuse copyright with patent. Very common for the unenlightened.
By the way USA didn't recognize the copyright convention (the Bern convention)
before the late 1990:s.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
The point is its reasonable to protect a novel. But not how to use a noun or a
verb [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:46 PM EDT |
Patents are not copyrights.
Your book example is wrong because that's what copyrights are for, not patents.
If properly applied to software, it works as intended, i.e. protecting a
specific implementation.
But patents are not specific to a particular implementation, and there lies the
problem.
As for aircraft design, the physics aren't patentable, however there are
multiple ways to accomplish the intended result of those physics, and those
ways, to the extent they are different and original, are patentable. (i.e. a
helicopter vs fixed wing vs swept wing vs etc...)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT |
No, there are much better reasons for eliminating patents
altogether. Patents don't promote innovation.
The idea that some things aren't patentable was supposed to
prevent patents from being applied to fields where it's
especially obvious that patents are harmful. Like, say,
fields where the doctrine of "constructive reduction to
practice" means you can get a patent on a desired result
without giving any details of the implementation. You know,
like a software patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
As another pointed out... you really need to change:
By extension
of that logic books are just words, words are letters, and since letters aren't
copyrighted then books shouldn't be allowed to be
copyrighted
either.
to:
By extension of that logic books are just words,
words are letters, and since letters aren't patentable then books
shouldn't be allowed to be
patented either.
I certainly hope it
makes a lot more sense to you why a book shouldn't be patentable.
Note:
We are clearly not talking about the concept of a book.... a device with a
cover, and pages, and contents, etc.
We are clearly - to put properly in
the context of software - talking about:
Patenting a book on how to
cook
Patenting a book on dining etiquette
Patenting a book
with nothing but pictures of dogs
That's the equivalent of patenting
software.
So let me clearly ask you:
Do you honestly believe a "book
of which the contents consists of pictures of dogs" should be
patentable?
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
If you knew anything about copyright law you would know that your four years
old's scribblings is copyrightable. Shakespear's original text (nor Dickens'
etc...) is not copyrightable.
At the time of Shakespear copyright didn't exist.
Dickens were copyrighted (and freely pirated by American publishers) but is now
out of copyright as it is more that 70 years since Dickens died.
Please educate you self.
Have a nice day.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
I do not live in the US, but are words patentable there?
Most places they are just copyrightable - which, if I
understand it correctly, is a completely different thing.
Which means:
You can not copy word for word from a book I wrote, but you
can make a book with a similar story.
Software is the same. You can not use my exact
implementation of an algorithm (because it is copyrighted),
but you can use the same idea.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 05:11 PM EDT |
Now, you know what you just wrote makes
no sense.
So why did you do it? Seriously, do you
really want to spend your time so ridiculously?
If you keep it up, I'll have to block you.
Fair warning.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 06:31 PM EDT |
It helps if you gain some slight understanding of patents
and copyrights before mouthing off.
You cannot patent creative works like books. You can
copyright them as you can software, but this is very
different from patents as it protects against literal
copying.
Trade dress (Design Patents in USPTO speak) is also
completely different from Patents.
There are some really uber-dumb comments from some posters,
this one included. It makes me wonder whether the jury
members for the trial have found this website and started to
post on it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
