Newsgroups: trial.misc.legal.software
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: Patents (was Re: Copyrights)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 90 02:29:05 GMT
Message-ID: <1990Aug01.022905.26807@looking.on.ca>
References: <1990Jul27.014947.19528@hellgate.utah.edu> <>> <MERNST.90Jul27145740@emu.lcs.mit.edu> <rodney.649107377@dali.ipl.rpi.edu> <2096:Jul2900:53:4390@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <MERNST.90Jul28233614@emu.lcs.mit.edu> <9492@goofy.Apple.COM>

I agree that there should be no difference between a truly devised
algorithm and a mechanical device.  They are the same.  If a patent applies
to one, then it should apply to the other.

And while it is true that *one* of the reasons for patent law is to
encourage disclosure, and that some could argue that society merely
trades a temporary monopoly (and the possible profits) for disclosure and
eventual release to the public domain, I don't think that's the whole story.

Property ownership is a fundamental principle in our society, though some
may disagree with it.  Many, however, feel it is right that you own, control
and profit from the creations of your own mind.   Patent law exists not only
to encourage disclosure of inventions, but because it's the right thing to
do, under this ethic.

If this were not the case there would be no reason to offer patent protection
for ideas that are impossible to hide.  One can invent a specially shaped tool
but the moment you let it out the cat is out of the bag.  It's impossible
to sell it and hide it.   In some rare small-market cases this can be done
with trade secret contracts, but that's not always what happens.

So I think patents, like copyrights, are granted not only for the utilitarian
reason of encouraging dissemination of the idea or work, but for the
propertarian ethic as well.

Whether this *should* be the case is the subject of an ongoing debate
all over the world.  I am not sure we can settle it here.  But if you *do*
believe in property, then I argue that intellectual property is the truest
form of property there can be.   The relationship between myself and my
real estate is a virtual one created by society and law.  The relationship
between myself and my software is a real one that exists outside of society.
Society could crumble and my land would not be my land, but my thoughts would
still be mine.

I actually suspect things might be best served by a special kind of
software/algorithm patent.  This patent would be granted after examination
by experts in the field, and might last for a shorter time than the current
mechanical patent scheme.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
