From dewaz@ran.es  Sun Oct 15 17:01:38 2000
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 10:01:38 -0700
From: dewaz dewaz@ran.es
Subject: [Patents] invention and discovery

antonio abrantes wrote:
> 
> Dewaz wrote:
> 
> >>>Well, for me it is clear that Doppler could patent a radar or even
> copyright a program to calculate the Doppler shift.
> But not patenting such program!<<<
> 
> Maybe here we have some confusion about the scope of a patent.
> In the case of a radar equipment (based on Dopler theory) the applicant
> will not monopolize the Dopller theory, that will continue free
> to development of other equipments. The same occurs if this invention
> was implemented by software: the aplicant will receive a patent for
> such an aplication of this theory, as a radar system (implemented by
> software). 

Yeah! soft patents are very confusing for me, and this increases it ;^)
I presumed that people behind soft patents wanted a "stronger"
protection
than the copyright offers.(that is :keep people out of Doppler theory)
I know that ideas around a computer program can not be copyrighted just
the code wich implemented them.
According to you it is the same when patenting a program"the applicant
will not monopolize the Doppler theory,that will continue free".
Then, Where is the profit for pro soft patent supporters?
Why patenting instead of copyrighting?
(Thanks in advance for the answer)

On the other hand I guess that making differences between "soft wich
solves a tecnical problem" or "embedded software" and "pure soft" is
just a smooth way to patent ALL software later,I mean the first step of
the race.

> Dewaz wrote:
> >>>Why not simply patent the math formula wich solves the Doppler shift
> ?(actually that would not be very far from a C++ computer program)
> ...If you allow patenting soft you allow patenting ideas and them there
> will be no more differences between "discovery" and "invention"(using
> your words)<<<
> 
> In this case, for me, the distinction is very clear: the doppler theory
> can not be patented and it is free to other inventions. The software
> protected here, is protected only to the application of such theory
> as implementation of a radar system. But I agree with you, that in
> some cases (not this one) this line is not very clear, 

Hummm and if line is not clear and a lot of confusing laws arise and
expensive lawsuits burst, I think that industry will find another way of
protection out of patents.
May be thanks to "know-how" or something when this were possible.
That is what I mean when spoke about the hen of golden eggs or breaking
the balance.

> 
> the patent US 5297206 is a good example: a patent claim over two
> large prime numbers, that can be used in an encryption eletronic e-mail
> program. What is the line between a encryption program and a
> mathematical method? I think that there is no difference, so I think
> that such kind of invention is not subject matter.

What about DVD encryption?
What about algorithms for compressing sounds (MP3) or images (GIF)?
(I really will appraise your view)

Hummm again I am confused for people who makes difference between
"algorithms wich solves technical problem" and "pure algorithms".
Is there a heaven for useful algorithms and a hell for "pure
algorithms"?
Can "pure algorithms" find themselves useful fearing children? X^D 
IMHO patenting algorithms or mathematical methods is KILLING Free(for
freedom) Software from the seed.


Nice Sunday everybody!



-- 
Futuro Agonico S.A es propietaria de la patente 4129583 que protege el 
proceso de respuesta de correos electronicos.
Evite acciones judiciales subscribiendo nuestro preceptivo canon.
http://www.ran.es/personal/dewaz/paynow.htm





