Re: [Patents] Présentatio n sur les brevets logiciels

[Xavi Drudis Ferran <xdrudis@tinet.org>]

El Sat, Mar 22, 2003 at 11:28:48AM +0100, "Gérald Sédrati-Dinet (gibus)" deia:
> 
> Anyway, I talk about software patent and i've experienced that it is 
> always risky to compare it with "material" patent. With software 
> patents, I can assure you that most of filled patents claimed for "a 
> method and/or appartus" whatever the form this method and/or appartus is 
> implemented. That's one of the problem : software patents are too broad...
>

And that's not by chance. If swapts were narrow enough, they would be 
copyrights.
If you want to cover only the solution, not the whole problem, you'll find
the solution if the specific program, so copyright is enough. As soon as 
you try to "protect" something more, to avoid "imitiation" of undelying 
concepts, 
you are being too broad. This is because logical creations are different
from material creations. 
 
> >
> >But if patent praxis is evolving "beyond a particulary form", the whole
> >process of infringement becomes completely detached from subject matter.
> 
> I'm not sure to well understand the english expression "subject matter", 
> sorry.
>
It means fields of human creativity which are elegible or not for 
patentability.
 
> >
> >As written earlier here, you must get a patent on "the real thing". Thus
> >patents should be more like an industrial copyright. At least it should
> >be understandable in that way.
> 
> Yes but with softwares or algorithms or mathematical prooffs, what is 
> the "real thing" ? There is so many way to reach the same "real thing"...
>

The real thing is code, and the software protection equivalent to 
the industrial patents is copyright. 
 


-- 
Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org