[Linux-aus] Re: Fwd: Software patents

[Andrew Donnellan]

On 12/23/05, Matthew Palmer <mpalmer at hezmatt.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > For example, we would generally say source code itself is not patentable (it
> > > > > > > properly belongs under copyright) because there is no demonstration of
> > > > > > > economic utility in source code itself.
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhm... WTF?  I'd say that the economic utility of a concrete expression of
> > > > > an idea (source code) is far greater than an abstract expression of that
> > > > > same idea (a patent).
> > > >
> > > > Yes, except that source code is kept secret (proprietary source, that
> > > > is), where as patents require full disclosure.
> > >
> > > If the source code has no economic utility, then there would be no reason to
> > > keep it secret...
> >
> > Yes it has economic utility, but it's still not patentable.
>
> That does not follow from what the Senior Patent Examiner said in his
> original e-mail (quoted at the top of the block).  To remove the
> parenthetical statement, for clarity (emphasis mine):
>
> [...] we would generally say source code itself is not patentable [...]
> because *there* *is* *no* *demonstration* *of* *economic* *utility* *in*
> *source* *code* *itself*.
>
> I don't see how you can get from that to "source code has economic utility".
> Didn't the patent guy say "there is no [...] economic utility in source
> code"?

I didn't reach that conclusion from "source code has economic
utility". I reached it because patents require *disclosure*, and
source code is covered by *copyright*, two different things.

andrew

>
> - Matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-aus mailing list
> linux-aus at lists.linux.org.au
> http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linux-aus
>


--
This space for rent. Enquire within. Terms and conditions apply. See
store for details.
Get free domains - http://www.ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
Use OpenNIC - http://www.opennic.unrated.net