decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Question on software copyrights v patents | 280 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Question on software copyrights v patents
Authored by: Tkilgore on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT
> Very interesting points. I think you have convinced me that there are
fundamental differences between the area of genetics and software. In
particular, there is clearly a lot more overlap in software programs than there
is in genetics. That is, it sounds that it is virtually impossible to write a
software program these days without stepping on SOMEBODY'S IP. as

I didn't make that up. It is a statement widely publicized and is generally
taken as a proof that software IP has stepped off into la-la land. Now, combine
that with the fact that this is a field where lots of people have shared ideas,
collaborated, and were only interested in developing things and not interested
in hoarding their most holy IP. When IP was to be protected, the reliance has
been upon such methods as producing software and not letting people have the
source code. Microsoft has done a lot of that, for example. But I mention it
only because it is the most well known example. So that is one of the first
things to understand about the situation. The regime of "intellectual
property" is a total disaster when applied to an area of endeavor where
that is the way people work. One might just as well try to apply it to academics
going to conferences, talking to each other, writing joint papers even if they
do not work for the same university, and openly publishing their work in
journals. You know, if a country would want to shut down its research system and
kill off any future development, that would be the way to do it, wouldn't it?
Make all the professors quit sharing information with each other and quit
publishing, because it all belongs to university X or Y. Really bright idea. It
really is that bad for software development, too.

> In contrast
with genetics, the fact that somebody has found an association between gene
A and disease X has essentially no impact on my ability to find an association
between gene B and disease Y.

> As for the smartphone interface example, I knew that would cause some
issues given the current climate with Apple. Although, to be fair, my
understanding was that Apple does NOT have a patent over rectangles with
curved shapes or grids of icons, but rather a trade dress that related to a
fairly specific combination of the rectangles, size and shape of the icons,
size
of the top and bottom bezels, smaller bezels on the sides, a silver/gray rim
around the front face of the device, a 4x4 icon grid on a black background
and a 1x4 launchbar on a silver/gray background. My understanding is that
smartphones can use a number of these features without infringing upon the
design patents; they simply cannot use all of these elements. That seems a far
cry from stating that Apple has a monopoly on rounded rectangles. If I'm
wrong and they can sue any manufacturer of a rounded rectangular device
that is obviously absurd.

Well, perhaps I was slightly overdramatizing the situation. But the trouble
really does start even there, that a flat display which is rectangular with
rounded corners really ought not to be part of the trade dress for Apple or for
anybody else. Apple would have us to understand that it is a matter of trade
dress like the distinctive shape of the Coca Cola bottle. Sorry, no, it isn't. A
more analogous situation would be if Anheuser-Busch were to get a design patent
on longneck beer bottles made of brown glass.

Apple may have a case that Samsung was being too much of a copycat. But Samsung
was not putting a bitten-pear logo on its hardware, was not calling itself
App-Ple, and certainly did not rip off their underlying software or, for that
matter, their hardware much of which was built by Samsung. I mention things like
that because you used to find for sale a P.arker 5.1 fountain pen, not to
mention a Sincer sewing machine, made in Shanghai. Those are the kinds of things
which trade dress law is supposed to take care of. Apple would have been much
better off taking Samsung to the court of public opinion instead of bending
trade dress law completely out of shape and beyond recognition.

> I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "The problem is, how
far
can
one go in protecting that "inspiration" without doing major damage to
an
entire society, an entire country, or an entire segment of the economy? "
This
seems to me the crux of the matter.

Yes. And I should have made more clear that the damage to an entire country or
an entire society specifically includes the damage to the educational system, as
well as damage to the normal thought processes of ordinary people.
I will add to this that the current emphasis on so-called intellectual property
is completely upside down and pollutes the minds of the general public. The
damage is similar to the damage done by that nonsensical slogan, that the
purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. No, it isn't. And
people as old as I am actually know better. But this comes out of the water tap,
and the young are forced to drink it and it has come to the point that people go
around spouting it off as if it were true. Similar bad effects come from
distorted premises about "intellectual property" being spread around
for everybody to swallow.

> Perhaps the solution is to have different time scales of protection for
inspiration vs. methods. You get 17 years for a method, 17 months for an
idea (inspiration). Both the methods and ideas would be subject to 'prior art'
(prior concept) and 'non-obvious' tests. Even in the fast moving genetics and
computer industries, 17 months isn't that long, esp. considering that your
competitors can start working on their versions of the implementation during
those 17 months. Just a thought...

This is one of the ideas which get floated around, and it might help. Of course,
there is still the problem that the system seems to do one very poor job of
recognizing prior art and of recognizing what is obvious.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )