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 Hoeyrpw3@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 94065mason@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