[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• "different software must create a different machine." -- Not in the U.S., it doesn't. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 09:19 AM EST

I have asserted several times (yet another time, in my blog, recent ly) that a valid software patent would have to have the implementation details, including source code and the operating environment, in order to give it limits that can be interpreted by courts and others who need to be able to interpret the limits.

A patent without limits is useless to a free society.

But the poison pill in the Berne Convention has me worried. (It worries Stallman, too, if I understand him correctly.) Until we can do away with the Berne Convention, the logical conclusion that, since source code is literary, copyright should be the preferred way to protect software inventions, does as much damage as patents on software.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Berne ?!?!?! - Authored by: Wol on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 10:31 AM EST
  • Berne ?!?!?! - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 11:41 AM EST
    • You need to read more of what RMS says about this. - Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 12:58 AM EST
• Only if they remove the limitations - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 30 2012 @ 01:18 PM EST
  • Precisely because it allows circumvention of limitations. - Authored by: reiisi on Saturday, December 01 2012 @ 01:02 AM EST