freesoftwaremagazine.com — "Thus, this [Supreme] Court's precedent repeatedly sets out that software, which is nothing more than a set of instructions ? an algorithm ? to be performed by a computer in order to solve some mathematical problem, is subject matter that is not patentable..."
Jan 3, 2007 View in Crawl 4
1021Jan 4, 2007
I tend to contest that Trade Secrets are a really bad way to protect software simply because of the ease of reverse engineering someone else's product and making it widely available information, and therefore voiding the "Trade Secret" laws from being applicable.
controlguyJan 4, 2007
On the other hand, a bicycle represents a mathematical algorithm by which rotation of a gear by a pear of pedals is transformed into forward motion. Bicycle are simple enough to completely express mathematically, so one could conceivably design a bike using only the laws of physics as their language. So why can I patent the bicycle and not an algorithm for speech recognition?
bigcat1021Jan 4, 2007
"people don't walk around with a s**t on."That's good to know. Fecal matter is sooooooo last year.
nicerobotJan 4, 2007
@nepawoods Apparently you didn't bother reading <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook</a> . It can be argued that RSA should have never been granted a patent. This debate has been around since before RSA's patent.For better coverage, see:<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_United_States_patent_law</a><a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate</a>From the first brief discussion, it should be evident (at least it is to me) that SCOTUS did not intend to open the gates for software patents. They were allowing a process to be patented. It just happened that part of the process was software. The software should have been explicitly excluded from the patent.
treelovinhippieJan 4, 2007
Yeah software is very blurry.I think the actual code shouldn't be patentable, but more-so the function the program performs and how it goes about it. But even then there are functions common to multiple programs, which makes determining what can be patentable pretty much impossible.
1021Jan 4, 2007
in the current system, patents do too much, copyrights & trade secrets do too little. I wouldn't feel secure if something that I made were protected only by a copyright or trade secret type deal but I also see the hazards of impeding on progress if a patent were solidified. There has to be some middle ground reached when it comes to software and IP rights, we're just not there yet.
rodzirraJan 4, 2007
"Woo! A step in the right direction!"Damn right. Now, if only we could get rid of the rest of the patent office... After all, what is a patent? It's a certificate which states that the the certificate holder can instruct a mob of armed goons to steal the property of someone who happens to put some of his stuff together in a certain configuration and attempt to exchange it for something else. Utter barbarity and antithetical to peaceful civilization.
jtjdtJan 5, 2007
This will make it much harder to prosecute virus writers. Hey, a virus is nothing more than a set of instructions – an algorithm – to be performed by a computer in order to solve some mathematical problem, is subject matter that is not punishable by law..."