Twayne schreef:
>> rf schreef:
>>> firewoodtim <firewoodtim@cavtel.net> wrote in
>>> news:8rmr049pb7iktbn27baco6ri2c2sse3m66@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What is the impact of software patents
>>> What?
>>>
>>> There is no such thing as a patent on software.
>> No such thing?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent
>>
>> The definition of what a software patent is excactly might be hard,
>> but that is quite a wikipediapage for a thing that doesn't exists. ;-)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erwin Moller
>>
>> There my be copyright which
>>> simply means don't steal somebody's code.
>

Hi,

> He's right, code can not be patented.
>

Here we go again. ;-)

Do you remember the gif/LZW missery?
A simple storage idea for indexed pixels and a compression technique.

I don't care about the actual *code* used to do these basic things, but
the idea.
It did get patented.
Graphical editting software that wanted to offer gif-export had to pay a
fee to Unisys, who obtained that patent by then.

The League for Programming Freedom (Stallman again, hurray) even started
a 'Burn all gifs' campaign.

It was the public opinion that made them change their mind, not the law.


> It can be copyrighted, just a book can. Parts can be trademarked. But
> there is not avenue for patent.
>
> Go to any of the hundreds of free legit patent lookups, including gvt
> type, and try to find ANY software patent on ONLY the software; you
> won't find any. Go to the CFR or whatever it is in your country and
> read the definition of "patent" and what is "patentable".

So we can get into WHAT excactly can be patented (code or idea) and
WHERE (depending on where you live), but you know as well as I do, that
is not a clear line in the sand, but a swamp.

It is not clear at all, it is a total mess.

>
> So, don't plagairize the likes of Microsoft and you'll be fine.

You can only hope for that.

Regards,
Erwin Moller