[CLUE-Talk] Patent Infringement

[Timothy C. Klein]

* Jeffery Cann (fabian at jefferycann.com) wrote:
> On Monday 03 March 2003 12:44 am, bill ehlert wrote:
> >     so why are we making fun of it???
> Since the original intent of a patent is a social contract - i.e., the patent 
> owner will invent something great - forward the state of the art as you put 
> it.  Then during the monopoly period, after he regains financial costs from 
> the research and development, he will release this invention into the public 
> domain and complete the social contract because his monopoly expires - anyone 
> can now 'copy' the invention without fear of a patent infringement claim.  A 
> good example of this is generic prescription drugs, which have a different 
> patent term.
> 

Am I just crazy, or does this just fall to pieces with software patents?
Is a software patent holder required to release source code with their
patent?  If so, then the above would work, and the real issue is the
length of the patent.  If not, then advancing state of the art is a  pipe
dream.  I don't really know which is the case, can anyone enlighten me?

If there is no mandated source code release to receive a software
patent, I can't think of any argument that would make software patents
the friend of free trade.

Tim
--
==============================================
==  Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net  ==
==  http://i148.denver.dsl.forethought.net  ==
== ---------------------------------------- ==
== "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... ==
==============================================