panon@cheddar.ucs.ubc.ca (Paul-Andre Panon) (05/29/90)
In article <24752@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >In article <9005161119.AA18719@jade.berkeley.edu> FILLMORE@EMRCAN.BITNET writes: >>At the risk of prolonging this thread, I would like to pose a question: >>Since game ideas can't be copyrighted, can they be patented? >>My understanding is that the patent system is there to protect ideas. >>Marco? > >No, you don't want to open another can of worms like "patenting software", >do you? Do you? > >-- Marco Marco may have meant for that to be directed at me since I've sent him mail on the subject. It took me a long time to get around to reply because I've fallen so far behind in reading News (300 articles to go in comp.arch, 100 in alt.security, and one of these days I want to start reading comp.unix.wizards... :-)) "patenting software", from my understanding of the current patent system (admittedly very limited), doesn't exactly thrill me. However, as time goes by and we more fully enter the Information Age, information and, most crucial of all, ideas will be some of the few things which will have real value. Even raw materials and land will probably be secondary in importance. Actual manufacturing processes will increasingly be within the capacity of the individual. Currently bulk processes are out of reach of the individual but, given the Postscript version and an appropriate laser printer, you can make fairly respectable copies of books, and as the price drops it will be cheaper to print your own copy (seen the price of textbooks lately?). Similar capabilities will, over the next 40 years, become possible for an increasingly large number of products, given appropriate raw materials. When the cost of manufacturing/copying a product drops far below the cost associated with amortization of R&D however you run into problems. Software piracy is only the forerunner of what promises to be a much more widespread malaise in an Information Age society where the intrinsic value of an idea itself is not recognized. Somebody who can copy the software for $4 worth of media and the manual for $20 will wonder why it is being sold for $350. Unless the development, production, distribution, and support costs are made clear the price is going to seem exhorbitant (although, admittedly, in many cases it really is overpriced). When widespread piracy occurs however, the incentive to develop software/new ideas drops. This does seem to lead to a vicious circle. What is needed is a mechanism whereby the intrinsic value of ideas is recognized and properly compensated for, but which cannot be abused by companies to prevent competition and forestall progress. There's an old joke which goes "Mathematicians stand on each others' shoulders, Computer Scientists step on each others' toes." What I proposed to Marco was that a process in some ways similar to patenting be established whereby inventors are granted "ownership" of ideas. Yes, even for such basic ideas as the "windows/desktop" metaphor. Anybody who wishes to use those ideas would have to pay the inventor a fee based on the original development costs of the idea (plus some extra $$ for the risk), as determined by an independent panel. However, the inventor would not be able to withhold use from a competitor that was willing to meet the agreed price so that this mechanism could not be used to create monopolies on particular technologies. This process would, admittedly be quite manpower intensive in administration however providing a standardized format (like Income Tax forms :-) ) for evaluating development costs would hopefully help minimize the related overhead. So what do you think? Maybe this should be continued in alt.futures but I don't read that group so please mail me a copy of your replies if you re-direct/follow-up there. BTW: I think discussions on this subject and the A3000 are much more interesting than re-hashing "My argument is better than your argument" shouting matches about software piracy and copy protection. They are symptoms. Try to cure the disease. 1/2 :-) -- Paul-Andre_Panon@staff.ucs.ubc.ca or USERPAP1@UBCMTSG or Paul-Andre_Panon@undergrad.cs.ubc.ca or USERPAP1@mtsg.ubc.ca Looking for a .signature? "We've already got one. It is ver-ry ni-sce!"
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) (06/14/90)
In article <25284@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: In article <26765a47-21a9.3comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: > You can neither copyright *nor patent* ideas. If you could patent >ideas, we'd have some rich SF authors floating around. Tell that to Rivest, Shamir and Adleman :-) They'll tell you that you CAN patent ideas (i.e. inventions). Um, I think that for a patent, you're required to have a working implementation to obtain the patent. This is slightly different than being able to patent an idea. Which is why Clark didn't make any money off of geosync communciation satellites, and RAH didn't make any money off of waldos or waterbeds (though he did get one free waterbed - that he didn't use). For an interesting look at all this, you might check out the early patent on the automobile. For an even more interesting analogy with the software market, check out the early autmobile manufacturers association which freely shared nearly all inventions, and the exceptions were only exceptions for a few years. <mike -- Cheeseburger in paradise Mike Meyer Making the best of every virtue and vice mwm@relay.pa.dec.com Worth every damn bit of sacrifice decwrl!mwm To get a cheeseburger in paradise
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/15/90)
In article <MWM.90Jun14110900@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <25284@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > > In article <26765a47-21a9.3comp.sys.amiga-1@tronsbox.xei.com> dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) writes: > > You can neither copyright *nor patent* ideas. If you could patent > >ideas, we'd have some rich SF authors floating around. > > Tell that to Rivest, Shamir and Adleman :-) They'll tell you that you CAN > patent ideas (i.e. inventions). > >Um, I think that for a patent, you're required to have a working >implementation to obtain the patent. This is slightly different than >being able to patent an idea. This is absolutely true, though today is much easier to patent inventions that are embedded in computer programs (this is the result of the court decisions during the '80s). This is pretty much what the RSA people and others did. [see the details on what makes something "patentable" in my reply to the other fellow]. >Which is why Clark didn't make any money >off of geosync communciation satellites, and RAH didn't make any money >off of waldos or waterbeds (though he did get one free waterbed - that >he didn't use). While I believe the effort to build a geosync commmunication satellite was out of the question for a single individual like Arthur Clarke, I see no reason why RAH could not have built a working implementation of a waterbed. He just chose not to do it. -- Marco -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
marki@tahoe.unr.edu (Mark N. Iverson) (06/15/90)
In article <MWM.90Jun14110900@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Real Amigas have keyboard garages) Meyer) writes: >In article <25284@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > > Tell that to Rivest, Shamir and Adleman :-) They'll tell you that you CAN > patent ideas (i.e. inventions). > >Um, I think that for a patent, you're required to have a working >implementation to obtain the patent. This is slightly different than >being able to patent an idea. Last time I looked into this (within the last 18 mths) you cannot patent an IDEA. YOU CAN PATENT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDEA (i.e. you must have a working prototype). To get the "jump" on things, you can submit a Disclosure Document (~$10 fee) to the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. This is a simple document that has a verbal explanation and some figures that illustrate the idea. You explain it to a notary public, get it notarized, and send it into the patent office. They file it for 2 years. Its purpose is to establish a DATE OF CONCEPTION that will hold up in court, in the case that someone else has thought up the same idea and beats you to market. The D.D. is NOT a patent; it does, however, give you time to build a prototype and begin the paperwork for a patent. There are also DESIGN patents, but we won't go into those. [rest of mike's article deleted] > > <mike --mark -- Mark N. Iverson uunet!unrvax!tahoe!marki / We dance round in a ring and suppose, marki@tahoe.unr.edu (scientists)->| but The Secret sits in the middle, marki@clouds.unr.edu \ and knows. -- R. Frost
dfrancis@tronsbox.xei.com (Dennis Francis Heffernan) (06/15/90)
|> Bob Heinlen invented |>the waterbed, the waldo, and a few other goodies in his stories; Arthur C. |>Clarke invented geosynchronous satellites. | |I guess they were not interested in the often grusom, lenghty and COSTLY |process of applying for a patent. All the items you mention certainly |would qualify as "patentable". | |-- Marco Can't speak for Heinlen, but Clarke would sure have liked to have patented geosynchronous satellites. (Not that I'm A. Clarke's spokesperson, but I've read statements from him to that effect...:-) ). But he couldn't. Hey, maybe they changed the law while I wasn't looking. I'll be pissed if they did, though. People have speculated what type of society would develop after an information society. Some said it would be a leisure society. Not so- we now have the answer: a LEGAL society. Dennis Francis Heffernan | "Remember the words of your teacher, dfrancis@tronsbox | your master: Evil moves fast, but ...uunet!tronsbox!dfrancis | Good moves faster!" Original text (c) 1990 | --Partners in Kryme, T-U-R-T-L-E Power!