Discussion in 'other software & services' started by SweX, Aug 30, 2013.
Common sense !
This has always been the case in my country, India.
We have this law from the beginning:
A mathematical, or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms are not inventions and hence not patentable.
Very nice progress
Too bad Hell will have a white Christmas before that happened in the U.S. Software patents are ridiculous and destructive.
Surprised people are excited about this. How is software not an invention? Someone had to come up with it. Why shouldn't they be able to be compensated for it? What if they are selling it, someone pirates it, then rebrands and sells it themselves. Should the true creator not be able to pursue legal action against them?
Nobody should be able to patent freakin ones and zeros. Besides, I see this more as a message to the patent trolls (remember the idiot that wanted 1000 bucks every time someone used a printer?) and the never-ending wars between Apple and others than telling people they can't make a buck off of their creations...IF you can call software true creations. Computer programming is used in all software and technically, if you want to get real technical, nobody that is alive can patent it. The GUI could be slightly different, but, again, programming and ones and zeros.
it might not be patentable, but there is always the copyright...
In the simplest terms because Software is derived from maths and maths is universally not patentable.
Depending on the laws of the country your in, software fails obviousness and inventive tests.
All you issues are all covered by copyright.
I am not on one side of the argument or the other.
However, how is using maths and arranging zeros and ones different from using chemistry and arranging elements to create a patentable drug?
chemical compounds are physical entities. programs are representations of a concept. zeros and ones are a concept, just like a formula for a chemical is not the chemical itself. the program does not become an entity until it is programmed into a computer, and it is then no longer the same entity it would have been in a different computer, a different OS version, the location of the electrons which are the entity vary too much to be considered the same. the entity a chemical formula is used to create is however always the same. in fact some physicists think there may only be one electron in the universe, shared by all atoms and existing everywhere and everywhen. a mathematical concept that boggles the mind.
this is not a number 'one' -> 1
this is not a number 'zero'-> 0
they are just numerals representing the number.
this painting by magritte from 1928/29 is called 'the treachery of images' illustrating the same philosophy:
his comment when told it WAS a pipe was 'just try smoking it.'
~ Removed Copyrighted Image ~
Well I'm still not convinced. You are still creating something unique, and should still be able to protect your creation, even if it is non-physical. Seems to me some people just don't like paying for software and dealing with the licenses.
If you're about to turn this into a piracy thing, just stop before you start honestly. It has nothing to do with it. As others said, copyright handles things like brand names. It's simply mind boggling stupidity to patent math and concepts in general. Electricity isn't patentable (Or Ben Franklin and everybody else would have been all over that in a flash), light bulbs are. They are physical devices that use natural science to work. Software is not physical and merely uses a non-physical concept. You basically have concept in a shrink-wrapped box with a trademarked brand name stuck on it. Other than those two things, you're creating nothing but the GUI..which, unfortunately for your argument, is also using the same concept and math that can't (shouldn't) be patented.
You don't need convincing, just common sense honestly.
Well in UK, the work SKY is patentable and copyright.
The TV company called, BSkyB, has sued Microsoft that Microsoft cannot use "Sky" in their cloud service called, "SkyDrive". They won the suit up until the Appellate Court. Now, either Microsoft to remove "Sky" from "SkyDrive" or came up with a different name. That will cost Microsoft millions in expenses.
When a ordinary work like "sky" has become patentable?
Aladdin, your mistaken, you cannot patent words (for the same reason you can't patent maths); "Sky" is not patentable in the UK, it is a registered trademark.
Separate names with a comma.