william-and this is important-you get to be an expert in software and dale is just self interested. Is this the advocacy of reason? do you not follow us around on this site and bring this issue up? You have an agenda. we get it. It is anti-human, anti-capitalist. noted. like we get CG

Does this comment represent the advocacy of reason? I'm afraid you are the one embarrassing yourself. You are a lawyer specializing in this field who writes and lectures and yet you resort to name calling and childishly decremented all my posts. Or threatening to hide me if I don't agree with you. It's actually pretty sad.

You know nothing about this subject, you ignore the most basic facts, but like the socialists you are not even embarrassed by your ignorance and lack of regard for facts.

Interestingly I can say exactly the same. I have been patient too -- in spite of being called names. I understand the implications completely. Sometimes understanding the other person's point of view does not mean you agree, although one always thinks that if you explain yourself clearly enough the other guy will agree with you. Of course there is a real answer, reality exists. But we have different perceptions of it from where we stand.

I thing the broader rights granted by patents are damaging the development of the industry without significantly improving productivity. I think the chance for punishing the innocent is high. And I think that copyrights strike the right balance for protecting our IP.

I really understand. I just disagree. And a lot of other people feel the same way. DB just posted an article arguing with them.

As to submarines, there is an example of a flaw in the Patent system that isn't software related. Once someone came to Professor Richard Feynman and asked him about atomic rockets. He said that he didn't know anything about atomic rockets and they told him he had the patent on it. This surprised him.

He thought back and remembered that at the end of the Manhattan project someone had stuck their head in the door of his office and said that they were filing patents for the applications of nuclear fission. Feynman tossed off a number of ideas off the top of his head and 'voila' he has a patent on an entire endeavor.

sigh. I worked in radio during college and we had these 8 track things we called "carts." basically, they were continuous loop feeds of advertising you engaged and had to watch for the 30 second mark to mute the volume, or they would replay. I am SOOOO patient here. We have gone through this. Copyrights are not the same level of protection as a patent. I have told you this, or db has told you this many times before. You miss that. Court cases will show plagiarism is not compensated in the same way. Understand that about your own inventions. Please. "The fact that I haven't implemented them all doesn't mean the idea is not obvious, just that it takes work to do it." Yes, said Jules Verne regarding submarines

Well, if they stole the code then copyright law should be just fine. You aren't allowed to steal code. There are many improvements that can be made in a product that will take weeks or months to implement. I have a 'wish list' with dozens of items. The fact that I haven't implemented them all doesn't mean the idea is not obvious, just that it takes work to do it.

Since I never implemented a pay system in software I haven't independently implemented one click, but if I did have a pay system it would have at least been on my wish list.

ah, that is why it existed before Amazon figured out how to do it. "obvious" is always after the fact. IF it was so obvious why did B&N steal the code? They admitted as much. Implementation can be the utility. The specific utility (how) is what is protected in every patent. This is patents 101. If you can obtain the same result using a different method, go for it. THis is a question. Maybe Db can answer. Most applications have in their title "system and method." why?

"It's not clear that software in general should be either patented or copyrighted " It is very clear. That you cannot see that, adds to my disappointment. Start from the foundation-invention-and work from there. Every time there is a disruptive period in invention people claim that should not count as invention. Every time in the history of modern patent system. It affects real lives and real inventions. You only aid the enemy

I think Gene is very careful politically and underlying that, more of a cynic. I think he would agree. Dale guest posts for him, occasionally, and highlights his blog, which, btw is in shambles right now. we have to get it back up. Our host site doesn't host us any longer and handed us "files" it's like handing you a piece of glass in shards. ugh

When he accused me of denying causality.

His relatively short summation presented a very good description and explanation. I was impressed when I found it. You guys haven't managed to get him aimed to Objectivism yet? I'm surprised.

This is one of the best explanations I've read, so far. Thanks, Ted.

Gene is an actual patent attorney. He is not an objectivist,but understands patents,the patent process, and the reality of being an inventor.

yes, Gene is a collegue

A guy named Gene Quinn, a software patent attorney wrote the following which seems to resolve a lot of the multitudes of argument, 'for me and backs up what the hallings are arguing' over copyright vs patent if you can satisfy the Bilski SCOTUS decision.
An excerpt:
“But when do you have a patent eligible invention? It irritates many computer programmers to no end to learn that the law doesn’t require a single line of code to be written before you can patent software. This irritates many programmers because they feel that the computer code is the end-all-be-all of the software program. That is simply not true either in reality or in the eyes of the law. Computer code is a language just like any other language, and the computer code is a set of instructions that will ultimately explain to the computer what needs to be done, how to accomplish the tasks and what to do with the information, both from a storage, manipulation and output standpoint. Thus, computer code is a set of directions.
The core of a computer program is not the code, but the design of the system. The computer code merely implements the vision, the requirements of the desired design in language that a computer can understand. The mental conception, which is what the patent law considers invention and what ultimately leads to a protected invention, relates to the design of the system, the system architecture and the road map set forth for the various processes, computations and manipulations of information that is acted upon. While it may be helpful to have some code written, and while the writing of the code will likely cause the system engineer tor reevaluate, add on and work around various things, it is the system design that is the invention, not the code. Thus, when you protect a software related invention you are not tying the protection to ask for or ultimately receive to any particular implementation in code.Written properly the software patent will cover the myriad of different ways a computer coder will seek to accomplish the same task. Thus, software patents are far more valuable than copyrights. Copyrights protect computer code and are limited to offering protection against copy of the exact code written. If all you have is a copyright and someone writes different code to accomplish the same functionality you have no recourse. That is why software patents are critical for those that need to protect their proprietary efforts.”

So copyright only protects your word by word programming, but does not protect the idea that leads to an 'invention'.

We implemented a DEC computer on a 5 stand reduction cold rolling mill for aluminum from 1/4" annealed down to can thickness with an output speed of 2400'/min. The computer monitored eveness with laser measurement of the 6' wide sheet and adjusted hydraulic down pressure of the five mill rollers for deflection control of the curved roll to maintain longitudinal extension rather than width and the flatness of the sheet. and had to be interfaced through relay logic. PLC's hadn't hit the market yet. In 79, I designed a project to replace nearly 700 - 4 to 6 contact relays with Modicon PLC's with an estimated budget of $1.5 million and a 1 yr schedule transferring a section at a time on maintenance down days twice a month. It was a nightmare project.

Well, there we differ. I think that the growth of software patents is holding the industry back. No one developing software looks at the patent library and finds good patents to use. It's entirely opaque to the designer. No design literature I've found even considers the possibility.

Patents are only used to stop people from development or slow them down. It never makes anyone able to develop faster.

Things like the 1 click patent are clearly in this category. It was used to block B&N from developing. No one believes that Amazon would not have invented it if they couldn't protect it. Of course they would because it would give them an advantage -- at least for a while.

The objective of 1 click to buy is obvious to anyone who understands user development. The implementation of the function may be technically complicated and challenging. The patent, however, is on the obvious goal, not the implementation. Copyright would protect the implementation.

Actually it was because there were so many bugs and so much custom code that you couldn't run the program for your business without their help.

And while we do keep our source code confidential, I'm not sure anyone would really be able to do anything with 12,500 pages of computer code. Recoding the algorithms would be a heartbreaking multi-year effort.

We have a vibrant library of accessible code and routines, frankly more than anyone can effectively use. We don't need everyone's source code to be published to disseminate tech throughout the world. In fact it probably wouldn't help. The routine libraries that are published are far more accessible examples of tech.

A computer is already a device whether it is programmed or not.

It's not clear that software in general should be either patented or copyrighted as opposed to a third class better recognizing it for what it is. The laws have been stretched to include it based on some similarities in both cases, and some protection recognizing private property rights is better than none, but it's far from a clean solution. But property rights of all kinds are under assault.

Finally as I thought. EFF. Keep throwing stuff at th wall. Do you have any idea how exhausting it is to refute feelings and unbased or false claims all day? No. You are part of what holds our nation 's progress back. What a waste.

Yes the trade secret level which does not disseminate tech rhroughout the world.

Actually, it is the point that concerns me. It does seem obvious to me and obvious things are not supposed to able to be patented.

Having the idea that you want to get the order down to one click and actually designing the infrastructure to do it are two separate things. That could account for a delay in implementation.

And your comment on shareholder's reaction is also relevant since even if you think your opinion on a patent is correct, you simply have to cave because of the cost of justice.

And, yes, I understand you are frustrated because you can't convince me with your arguments. Does this imply that the idea that you might be convinced by mine hasn't crossed your mind? Is it not you who has the irrational belief? Note I do not make that claim, just that I am trying to convince you just as hard as you are trying to convince me. (And I appreciate the effort as opposed to name calling).

A lot of the early applications were large customized programs. They were protected by the "if you don't keep paying us we'll stop fixing it" method. Which works at a primitive level of the industry.

That is often the case, and anyone who is attracted to Atlas Shrugged or who is interested in protecting some right in the face of a newly encountered threat can be an ally with potential for improvement in other realms. But those isolated connections and potentials are a long way from a principled, philosophical similarity (with or without being regarded by anyone as 'philosophical equals' in some sense).