Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Back to Intellectual Property (was: Re: Free Free Flow)
Message-ID: <1848@looking.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jul 88 23:05:31 GMT
References: <9160@cisunx.UUCP> <1801@uhccux.UUCP> <807@netxcom.UUCP> <1804@looking.UUCP>  <1812@looking.UUCP> <826@dlhpedg.co.uk>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 33

It is true that many things in the concept of the patent apply well to
software.

The reason I think the initial discussion should focus more on copyright
is that it's easier to decide the issue.

With a piece of software, book or other moderately complicated piece of
I.P. it is usually extremely clear that the product is a creation of
a person or group.   As long as one book or program was known to be first,
if another comes along that is byte for byte or word for word the same,
it's an easy decision as to what transpired.

(This gets more complex when you consider derivative works, but the central
issue is clear.)

With patent, one can't be so sure.  One has to consider that two independent
developers might come up with the same idea, and the law is predicated on
a presumption of innocence.  Two indpendent writers do not come up with
the same chapter of a book, however.

It's actually not so much patent vs. copyright, but rather the complexity
of the thing protected.  If it can be said in a few words, it's harder
to be sure of the origin than if it's 15K of assembler.  That's why
we get arguments over songs, which are very short.

The issue is further complicated by things like look and feel claims, when
you get to smaller things like specs.  But when we discuss whether I.P.
should exist, it is good to start with something that everybody can agree
is the creation of the proposed "owner."


-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  --  Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473