J
Julian Turner
VK said:
Yep. Sorry, this is my last word on the subject.
That is a very interesting read. Thank you for that.
In the case of patentability of software, I should have been clearer:
in the UK software as such is not patentable, but the "external"
technological application of software can be. In simple terms, if the
software has an effect "outside" the computer.
The LZW compression patent is an interesting example of this: to my
mind the patent would certainly cover a communications system (e.g. a
phone network) that used LZW compress digital data for real time
communications. And indeed if you read the LZW patent, it is described
as a "High speed data compression and decompression **apparatus** and
method", which is suggestive of its use for external application.
However, it is less clear that the LZW patent covered the use of it to
create GIF's; but presumably this was never tested before a court in
the UK.
I would concede that the distinction is difficult to make, and all
Governments are uncomfortable about being too precise in a fast
changing area such as technology. They sometimes prefer to leave it to
Judges to make the difficult decisions on a case by case basis.
http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/conclusions.htm
Microsoft was smart enough to publically claim at the very beginning
(Windows 1.0) that Windows is "a derivative creative development of
Apple graphical user interface" and now they are safe. If they did not
do that, and if Apple was not so self-secured that time to not patent
it, then currently Bill Gates would wash socks to Steve Jobs) and
KDE for Linux would not exist :-((
That may have been the case in the US, as software patents seem easier
to obtain there.
In the UK, it may have been more difficult for Apple to patent the GUI,
as there is no external technological application in my view. I would
submit that the GUI is internal to the computer.
Julian