[CLUE-Talk] Patent Infringement

[Dennis J Perkins]

> * 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... ==
> ==============================================
> _______________________________________________
> CLUE-Talk mailing list
> CLUE-Talk at clue.denver.co.us
> http://clue.denver.co.us/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> 


I have a friend who argues that programs should be denied copyright unless the 
source code can be viewed.  His argument is that unless you can read the source 
code, a program should be viewed as a trade secret.