Re: [Patents] some practical ideas

[Russell McOrmond <russell@flora.ca>]

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, PILCH Hartmut wrote:

> Indeed companies are demanding the extension of copyright to hardware
> design, and in some cases courts are refusing it for systematic reasons,
> saying this is the domain of patents.

  I really wish that some clarity was brought to this issue.  While the
current confusion is obviously beneficial to those with special economic
interests (monopolists, patent lawyers, and patent consultants - whether
they are in the business of 'busting' patents or not), it is simply not
helpful to innovation or the economy as a whole.

  Something should not be able to have both patent and copyright
protection on the same idea/method.  Either it is a description on how to
make a *physical* device, or it is an expression of an idea.  It shouldn't
be considered possible to be both.

  It would be best if patents were reserved for processes in the creation
of something physical.  I have simply never understood the logic behind
the patentability of business models or software.  I have also believed
that as more hardware became 'programmed', that only the physical part of
the 'invention' should be under patent, with the programming under
copyright.

  As more of what we tend to think of as hardware is 'programmed' (IE: is
really software), the less patenting should apply to this hardware.

  Copyright of technology needs to have exceptions to be workable.  The EU
1991 directive on computer software which does not offer copyright on
'interfaces', and specifically protects the right to reverse-engineer to
create a compatible program.  I believe this is consistent with the
fact/expression dichotomy, and that legal interpretations that try to
offer protectionism for 'interfaces' (like the USA's interpretation of
"Legal protection for TPM")  are simply inconsistent with the basics of
copyright.


  The purpose of copyright, patents, and related laws must be to promote
innovation, not to protect the special economic interests of a few players
(monopolists, patent lawyers and patent consultants).  I have simply never
seen *any* proof that the levels of monopolies being asked for are
required as an incentive for innovation.
  Given monopolies are generally recognized to be harmful to innovation,
competition, and economies in general, the burden of proof should *always*
be on the people asking for more government protectionism, never the other
way around.


---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
 Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses, 
 VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen 
 and not a third party.   -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/