The C++ std and copyright

J

James Kanze

Yes, that's about it, patent law is currently a messy area since there
are many types of patents, from national, to international, with some
multinational thrown in (such as EU patents). To my knowledge it's not
possible to get an international patent on algorithms (software patent),
and it's not possible in the EU* either. The US does allow them however,
and that coupled with a kind of broken patent system** have caused some
troubles in the software industry.

There are definite international agreements concerning what is
and what is not patentable. There's also international
jurisprudence.
However since it's an international market, especially for
software, it means that almost all have to play by the US
rules, since they have to follow them if they distribute their
software in the US.

There are also trade agreements, such as GATT, which
theoretically don't allow an individual country to block
importation and sale of something which is not banned
internationally.
That would probably be the TRIPS agreement.

Maybe. There are any number of them, and there's international
jurisprudence as well.

Not international, but there's also the US constitution. One of
the "powers of congress" is: "To promote the Progress of Science
and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and
Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and
Discoveries;". The problem is what is meant by "Discoveries";
the use of the word "Inventors" before, and traditional
jurisprudence, has excluded algorithms and laws of nature.
(Newton couldn't have patented gravity, for example. And Hoare
couldn't have patented quick sort---it's an algorithm, and not
an invention.)

In so far as software is the expression of an algorithm, of
course, it can be copyrighted (as expression) but not patented.
(This was the position of the US courts up until recently.)
 
J

James Kanze

[...]
Note that if the microcode is burned into a ROM it is now
hardware - should patents on such like be banned? I think
this is not a simple problem, but the well has been polluted
by some trivial patents that should never have been granted.
For example, I have read newspaper accounts of patent on
something involving "one click shopping" or some such. And
because of such things a huge number of programmers want to
ban patents in a somewhat related area. Patentability should
depnd on what kinds of marks I, as an engineer, make on paper?
If I draw AND gates it is patentable and if I draw 1's and 0's
it is not? Does that make sense? The *idea* is the important
thing, not the kinds of marks made on paper to represent that
idea.

Nothing you "draw" is patentable. You need a device. Whether
that device depends on 1's and 0's in ROM, or on NAND gates, is
irrelevant to the issue.

Historically, I think that the "device" is required in order to
exclude patents on laws of nature or algorithms. You can patent
a machine which uses gravity, or the quick sort algorithm, but
you cannot patent gravity, or the quick sort algorithm
themselves.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top