Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9720 misc.int-property:742 comp.unix.bsd:7389
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Message-ID: <1992Nov3.030151.11061@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
References: <1992Oct27.172831.22782@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <id.SSJU.KXL@ferranti.com> <1992Oct31.043526.11350@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Nov2.194920.29854@netcom.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 92 03:01:51 GMT
Lines: 50
In article <1992Nov2.194920.29854@netcom.com>, mcgregor@netcom.com (Scott Mcgregor) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct31.043526.11350@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
|>
|> >Look-and-feel suits are based on a platform of copyright infringement, not
|> >patent infringement. This is the type of "software patent" I'm against,
|> >since copyright protection can be maintained *much* longer than patent
|> >protection.
|> >
|> >The benefit of a patent-like mechanism with copyrights disallowed in this
|> >case is disclosure; it's not always possible to reverse engineer, and
|> >trading the, authors disclosure for a time-limited monopoly is a fair
|> >trade.
|>
|> Would a design patent (as opposed to utility patents we have been
|> talking about here) suit your objectives?
I think it would. But I'd want to limit it so that copyright of the same
information was impossible. This way the disclosure actually buys us
something (towards the constitutional goals) after a finite amount of time
has passed. According to the actuarial tables, a copyright of something by
a man who is 20 will last 102 years (50 years after his death at age 72).
This is much too long a time to prevent derivitive works; 7 years is much,
much more reasonable period of time (14.57 times shorter). Even if it were
worth a 14 year patent, we get off with only 7.2 times the amount of time
before it would be generally usable by anyone.
A copyright is a terrible instrument compared to a patent, if we want to
encourage dervitive works of what we consider "good work". The RSA patent
is a good example of this. Their code would be generally usable 95 years
earlier than is currently the case, given their copyright. Thus it is the
copyright, not the patent, which is the problem.
I believe an argument can also be made that this would discourage companies
capable of producing innovation from doing so once and sitting on their
laurels (like some companies we know). Since a company would basically be
required to renew their technical lead at least every 7 years, or lose their
market, there would be significant incentive to actually *do* new work.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------