dewinter@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Jack a.k.a. Wildside) (04/14/91)
If this sounds like a stupid question to some people out there, please bear with me. However, what I am wondering is very important to programmers out there in net-land. If a algorithm is patented or copyrighted, how much of the algorithm are programmers able to use? Can we create a version of the algorithm that does not have the neat tricks outlined in the source where we got it from, or are we forced to come up with our own nifty tricks? I.E. If patented/copyrighted, how can we use the algorithm? On a similar note, if we cannot use any aspect of the algorithm, why do people copyright it in the first place? I guess this is a question regarding formats like LZW which is embedded into the GIF specification. Any answers would be greatly appreciated, -- Jack a.k.a. Wildside ... 2nd regeneration of a Time Lord ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "But that's not decent" "I am a pirate, I don't do decency!" - Don Carnage
jones@pyrite.cs.uiowa.edu (Douglas W. Jones,201H MLH,3193350740,3193382879) (04/14/91)
From article <1991Apr14.150509.1755@watserv1.waterloo.edu>, by dewinter@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Jack a.k.a. Wildside): > > If a algorithm is patented or copyrighted, how much of the algorithm are > programmers able to use? A copyright covers the expression of an idea. Neat tricks contained in a copyrighted work may be used by others with no penalty, as long as they don't express the same idea. Think literature to understand this. Just because some plot has been used in a copyrighted work doesn't mean that you can't borrow that plot, so long as you don't use the same turns of phrase in expressing the plot. If you think you can do a better job than Michner in using the plot of one of his books, you're free to try. Patents cover the idea itself, not the expression. In classic (non -software) patent law, there are two kinds of patents, process patents and mechanism patents (I'll ignore design patents because they are really a different kind of animal entirely). In the former class, consider a chemical process for making paint thinner. Such a process is described in terms of the initial chemical reagents, the order in which they are combined, and the conditions of each processing step. For example, each step might be described in terms of a range of temperatures, pressures, and durations, perhaps with specified catalyists of types of containers. Process patents apply to any process that fits the conditions specified, no matter what mechanisms are used to carry out the process. Thus, substitution of a piston pump for a turbine pump, or substitution of continuous flow methods for batch methods will make no difference, as long as the same processing steps are carried out in the same order under the same conditions. Mechanism patents cover mechanisms, no matter what purpose the mechanism serves. For example, someone might once have patented the planetary differential for use at the rear end of a car, and the patent on this combination of gears would apply equally well if the same mechanism were used in a differential analyzer. The key is that the mechanism itself is can be patented, irrespective of its use. Now try to fit software into this mess! Disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer, so don't believe all I've said. Doug Jones jones@cs.uiowa.edu
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (04/19/91)
In article <1991Apr14.150509.1755@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dewinter@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (Jack a.k.a. Wildside) writes: >If a algorithm is patented or copyrighted, how much of the algorithm are >programmers able to use? ... Algorithms can't be copyrighted. Software implementations of them can, but not the algorithms themselves.