3 ms·

> Many companies do patents as means to protect their IP when copyright isn't enough. It's hard to believe that 95 years of protection after publication (or 12

by Natsu 7y ago

> Many companies do patents as means to protect their IP when copyright isn't enough. It's hard to believe that 95 years of protection after publication (or 120 after creation) "isn't enough" for corporations, but I'm sure they'll find longer terms in one country and then push the others to "harmonize" on the new value at some point or what have you. Walt might lose his incentive to create new works if the Mouse's copyright is allowed to expire on January 1, 2024.

pron 7y ago
Copyright and patents apply to different works. In the case of software in the US, patents apply to algorithms or protocols (more precisely, to their implementations on computers) while copyright covers code.
- Natsu 7y ago
  Source code, which is what we're discussing here in Oracle vs. Google, may be covered by both, despite some Supreme Court rulings that tried to limit what may be claimed to at least avoid simple recitations of a standard computer. Of course, my view is that the real problem is that 101 can be met piecemeal. The novel part doesn't have to be patentable subject matter and the patentable subject matter doesn't have to be novel. So one would just recite claims of allegedly novel software running on an non-novel, but otherwise patentable computer. If novelty had to reside in the part of the claims that was patentable subject matter, I think a lot of the nonsense would have vanished, though I might well underestimate their cleverness in finding new and strange ways to disappoint us.
  - pron 7y ago
    > may be covered by both A piece of code can infringe on a patent, but it can't itself be patented (although the algorithm it describes can).
    - Natsu 7y ago
      You're using the legal term, I'm using the ordinary definition of the word. In other words, you can't use the code without a patent license, just as you can't use the copyrighted work without permission.

by Natsu 7y ago

pron 7y ago

Copyright and patents apply to different works. In the case of software in the US, patents apply to algorithms or protocols (more precisely, to their implementations on computers) while copyright covers code.

Natsu 7y ago
Source code, which is what we're discussing here in Oracle vs. Google, may be covered by both, despite some Supreme Court rulings that tried to limit what may be claimed to at least avoid simple recitations of a standard computer. Of course, my view is that the real problem is that 101 can be met piecemeal. The novel part doesn't have to be patentable subject matter and the patentable subject matter doesn't have to be novel. So one would just recite claims of allegedly novel software running on an non-novel, but otherwise patentable computer. If novelty had to reside in the part of the claims that was patentable subject matter, I think a lot of the nonsense would have vanished, though I might well underestimate their cleverness in finding new and strange ways to disappoint us.
- pron 7y ago
  > may be covered by both A piece of code can infringe on a patent, but it can't itself be patented (although the algorithm it describes can).
  - Natsu 7y ago
    You're using the legal term, I'm using the ordinary definition of the word. In other words, you can't use the code without a patent license, just as you can't use the copyrighted work without permission.