Umm, it made sense to me, ( i think ? ) ...
All you can "copyright" is your own implementation of an idea. With patents you can own the idea itself.
Yes, thats what i was getting at, in a nut shell. But i was just rolling it around to myself really. There is a difference, though subtle.
So, a patent decrees, or formalises ownership. That ownership being based on it being something original. Such as an invention. But thats all. It's up to the holder to decide how that title will be used. Where copyright controls how it will be used on transfer to someone else.
hmmm, seems the two are closely related, and in themselves apparently benign. Though, as is quite evident in business, when it comes to self regulation ... a person would have to be a fool to think it wont be abused.
And it would appear, that, as a patent depends on the concept of inventiveness. It would seem that thats the thing that is in need of some re-draughting. Like .. what is and what ain't an "invention", compared to an implementation. If that can be defined in an acceptable way, wouldn't that be a major govern over the issuing of patents. Easier said than done though, i know.
Could "xml" be thought of as an original idea, or just an implementation of the "concept" of "markup" language(s). I would think the idea of a patent would have to belong more with the later. But what i think isn't really worth much. It's what that weird commision thinks that counts.
So ... the EU commission has to figure out a definition for what constitutes an invention, or just when does something become original. But also, can't an "original" and thus apatentable thing, consist of a set of other original thing. Like a patentable machine, built from common components ... cogs, sprockets, levers etc. Like the "foon", over here it was called that. It was a cross between a fork and a spoon. A really handy utensil. One could drink beer and have their dinner at the same time, which puts it in the hall of all time great inventions in my book. It was different though. It borrowed two existing ideas and merged them into something completely different.
Doesn't software, kinda do that as well !, in a way.
And, if an object can be thought of as being an invention. Why can't an idea. Or does calling an idea a procedure make it more acceptable in that regard.
I just saw in LXF for March, up at the local shopping center, on the editors page. Seems Poland have been successful in blocking some vote or something. I haven't read it as yet
If software can be patented were __all__ doomed. And how the fsck does an unelected commission get to have any political power in a democracy. Thats totally weird.
Maybe different "classes" of a patent would be a good idea. With diminishing degrees of associated legal power (ie; different getting screwed levels).
Copyright should be sufficient in most cases. And, because of the complexity, the old surgeons maxim should be made to apply ... "when in doubt, cut it out".
That is, if it isn't obvious enough, and clear cut, then a copyright should only apply. And maybe some form of other recognition with out any legal weight.
Would the EU be having this problem if this so called commission was actually elected. Hell, the weekend is tomorrow, i'll have to have another, umm, long think on that one
If they get away with it over your way. Our egg-roll of a PM will just catch the idea, like the flue. Then we'll all have to carry it.
Good Luck on this. (get rid of that screwy commission for a start)
- Code: Select all
If you want to survive on a Talk Back show,
try to keep your mouth firmly shut.