Re: [Patents] You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

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

El Sun, May 09, 2004 at 12:27:06PM -0400, Gregory Aharonian deia:
> More copyright nonsense:
> 
> >Therefore proposals to extend patentability into data processing place
> >us in express violation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, The Berne
> >Convention, The Software Copyright Directive and the TRIPS Treaty itself.
>
 
> NO, software patentability does not conflict with these treaties.  Start


Greg, have you ever tried to start with "Yes, but..." instead of "NO", 
when you mean "yes, but"?.

Nothing of what you say next justifies the lack of conflict. Software
patents are not design patents. 

> with Berne, which pretty much implies (but does not state clearly) that
> literary works are to be protected by each country's copyright laws, and
> in some case patent law (Berne talks about design patents, and is silent
> on utility patents, which is why it has to be redrafted since more and
> more art is being protected with utility patents around the world).
> 

That's what was said, Berne says software is under copyright, not utility 
patents. 


> So saying software is literary under Berne means very little since it
> takes you back immediately to software copyright, which has been an
> intellectual disaster for thirty years.  Why?  Most national and regional
> copyright treaties quite clearly state that copyright protection only
> applies to expression - there is no copyright for ideas, processes, and
> methods (anything functional).
> 
> And this is the problem.  Everytime courts have tried to separate idea
> and expression in software, they have either failed or added to the
> aspects of software that are explicitly uncopyrightable.  Most aspects
> of software are uncopyrightable in the United States due to various
> court decisions over the last twenty years.  Indeed, in one decision
> that seems most governing (Altai), the court lamented that they wished
> that all of this software IP stuff be thrown over into the patent world
> which is better suited for analyzing structure and functionality.
>

Ok, you don't like the treaties that say software is under copyright 
and not under patents. Fine. We knew that. But this is not argument 
for saying they say otherwise. 
 
> Arguing that software is literary as a political tactic was tried 30
> years ago in the United States (the nonsense CONTU commission) and
> failed miserably, leading in the years to follow of the switch over
> to software patents.
> 
> While it will be amusing to see some of you go back 30 years in time
> for your arguments, I would prefer to watch "Back to the Future".
>


As far as I know software is under copyright in the USA. So I don't 
see how that policy failed 30 years ago. 

At least we seem to agree it is absurd to apply both copyright and patents 
to software. Or do we ?


- 
- jo també vull una Europa lliure de patents de programari  -
--------------------------------------------------------------
 EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://patents.caliu.info

Xavi Drudis Ferran
xdrudis@tinet.org