Re: copyright questions

["Vasiliy Molostov" <molostoff@gmail.com>]

Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> писал(а) в своём  
письме Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:22:18 +0400:

> Le Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:39:22 +0200, Vasiliy Molostov  
> <molostoff@gmail.com> a écrit:
>
>> APIs are not patentable, since does not contain any formula or process  
>> description, they are writings in a tangible fixed form in nature,  
>> instead you can issue patent on interface protocol, which describes a  
>> process (for example - ada task body).
>>
>> Ada 2012 standard comes with contracts in specifications (with PRE =>  
>> ... etc) and can make them patentable (more patentable than before),  
>> since specification becomes a formula.
>
> What kind of formulas are patentable? At least, I'm rather sure math  
> formulas are not.
>

You're right, patent formulas. see the link I have attached above in the  
thread.

> I heard to say patents are mainly intended to protect investment made in  
> physical processes researches (which are indeed typically more expensive  
> than computer based research and modelling).

or controlling some kind of harwdare, for example - fukusima reactor. very  
physical.

> There are also some laws intended to allow reverse engineering, when  
> this is justified by needs for interoperability.

yes, perhaps, this is not a copyright matter for this thread, I suppose.

> I guess balancing between the right for interoperability and the right  
> for patent, would be an horror.

? You've made interoperable solution, you have got a profit, then - be  
kindly obligated to
pay for a patented work use, or be sued for a license cost, copyright
can even restrict such use at all up to a criminal penalty.

> Patenting API and protocol (not internal protocols, which is different),  
> would be like patenting the precise definition of a standard screw  
> thread.

perhaps. many "standard" screws are patented indeed, as their screwdrivers  
too.

>  Hardly believable, isn't it? With software, you have ways to protect  
> your stuff, you don't have with physical things.

Protect from what? driver can break my monitor, robot can break someone  
head - why not? a process is patentable.

> For physical things, you have no choice, except patents.

picasso had designed a plate with his hand on it. copyrighted. very cost  
expensive thing, btw.

> For software, patents are not required: you can decide to not publish  
> sources

How about jpeg2000 and wavelet compression algorithms (for example - ECW  
file format and its client access library)?

> than to protect non-trivial original computation techniques distributed  
> as machine instructions).

mathematics are not patentable (but copyrightable) since they are abstract  
(not intended for use by hand),
in a case they are concreted in its application they become patentable  
(along with its application), please read link (cm14.zip)

Please be careful with reading since this matter (copyright and laws)
is very refined and can bring your mindset in a duality of meanings. Also,  
Torvalds said that patents
in software and its language (which is english but not indeed english) -  
is a crap. I agree.

-- 
Написано в почтовом клиенте браузера Opera: http://www.opera.com/mail/