hoey@NRL-AIC.ARPA (04/24/84)
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@NRL-AIC.ARPA> Bill McKeeman of Wang Institute, ``speaking as a non-lawyer,'' has provided us with a startling collection of non-law. I am not a lawyer, either, but my strong recollection is that: * A patent is not given ``in trade for ... disclosure.'' It is given to the inventor, and the justification is to foster invention. Calling a patent a ``contract'' is at best metaphorical. * Patenting is not a popular method of protecting software, but the reason is not that 17 years is not a long time. The reason is that the Patent Office does not issue patents for software. Thus it is not true that ``some people patent software....'' * The 1978 copyright law protects works for the life of the author plus fifty years. Given these inaccuracies, I am inclined to take the entire article with a substantial amount of salt. Dan Hoey
rpw3@fortune.UUCP (04/30/84)
#R:sri-arpa:-1267400:fortune:28000032:000:1903 fortune!rpw3 Apr 29 22:05:00 1984 I am sorry to argue, but the original poster is correct. Patents ARE given precisely BECAUSE the inventor discloses his/her invention. Look at the U.S. Constitution: "...to PROMOTE THE STATE OF THE ARTS, Congress shall..." (approximate quote). The point is that the founding fathers recognized that many people would never disclose their work if they did not get some protection from it being stolen. The patent system protects original art, for a time, IN EXCHANGE for which the inventor gives to the world knowledge of the invention, AND unrestricted use thereof after the patent expires. If the Patent Office discovers (or someone proves in court) that you have withheld critical information about your invention, the patent can be thrown out AND you can be sued for fraud! (Happens more often than you might guess.) The technology to duplicate your device must exist at the time of the patent application, as well, although you need not always have a working model. Arthur Clarke was denied a patent on synchronous communications satellites because (in 1945) "others skilled in the art" could not (then) duplicate his invention. (Later, after Sputnik, Clarke was AGAIN denied a patent, this time because of "prior publication". Seems he had talked about it on his lecture circuit!) The point is that the (U.S.) patent IS a (legal and social) contract, in which protection is exchanged for disclosure. Note that many small "lean and mean" start-up companies choose NOT to patent things sometimes, because the modern legal system often gives the "protection" to those with the most money for lawyers. Others go one better -- they freely publish, denying all the patent, counting on their speed to market to protect them. Rob Warnock UUCP: {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd70,hpda,harpo,sri-unix,allegra}!fortune!rpw3 DDD: (415)595-8444 USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphin Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065
mason@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Mason) (05/01/84)
To correct the correction: Patents are basically in return for disclosure. The idea is that the inventor will be able to make a killing for 19 years or whatever, but that the rest of the world will get to see the method, and be able to build on it to the (implicit) overall public benifit. The other corrections I believe to be correct, but I thought the original article to be well written. -- Usenet: {dalcs dciem garfield musocs qucis sask titan trigraph ubc-vision utzoo watmath allegra cornell decvax decwrl ihnp4 uw-beaver} !utcsrgv!mason Dave Mason, U. Toronto CSRG CSNET: mason@Toronto ARPA: mason%Toronto@CSNet-Relay