Actually (as opposed to technically?), every patent I
have ever seen protects an idea. Granted, the langage
of the claim will always be directed to patentable
subject matter as defined in the statute you cited,
but what is protected is the new,useful, and
nonobvious idea. I will also grant you that there are
many ideas that are not new, useful, and nonobvious,
but those were excepted in my first statement.
Likewise, I have not yet run across a new, useful, and
nonobvious idea that could not be protected by artful
crafting of a patent claim.
I think we agree more than not so maybe we should stop
bothering the rest of the copyright community with
patent esoterics.
keith
- "Robert F. Bodi" <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
> Technically, patents do NOT generally protect ideas.
> In the U.S., the
> patent statute states that:
>
> Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
> process, machine,
> manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
> and useful improvement
> thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
> the conditions and
> requirements of this title.
>
> Thus, to be patentable, it must be a useful
> "process, machine, manufacture,
> or composition of matter" or an "improvement"
> thereof. An "idea" is much
> more general, and must fall into this list to be
> patentable.
>
> -Bodi
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Tabor" <ket354[_at_]yahoo.com>
> To: "CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual
> Property"
> <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 12:00 PM
> Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Attribution is not required
> in public domain
> materials
>
>
> > "OOH, OOH, I know this one!" He said, hand
> stretched
> > to the sky from the school desk teetering on two
> legs.
> >
> > "3. other"
> >
> > Elaboration: Patents cover new, useful,
> non-obvious
> > ideas. All other ideas are deemed not worthy of
> > protection in our current legal framework.
> >
> > Do I get a gold star today!
> >
> > keith
> >
> > [There was a Mr. Carter/Horshack joke there, but I
> > didn't want to ruffle any screen writer feathers.]
> >
> > --- sstouden[_at_]thelinks.com wrote:
> > >
> > > The reason that ideas are not protected is
> because?
> > > 1. big corporations what the ideas
> > > 2. the ideas are humans and human issue is
> not
> > > subject to copyright
> > > 3. other
> > > sterling
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Joseph Pietro Riolo wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi
> > > <lawlists[_at_]bodi.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I fail to see how a requirement to attribute
> a
> > > work to its author violates
> > > > > anybody's free speech, any more than the
> > > requirement that one identify
> > > > > oneself to a police officer does. You take
> the
> > > right of free speech too far
> > > > > if you give others the right to plagerize.
> And
> > > note that plagiarism does
> > > > > NOT require an existing copyright. One can
> > > plagerize from the public
> > > > > domain.
> > > >
> > > > You are wandering into a totally different
> > > territory when you
> > > > try to make an analogy between requirement of
> > > attribution and
> > > > requirement to reveal one's name to a police
> > > officer. We have
> > > > laws on libel, slander, forgery, and perjury.
> > > None of them has
> > > > any affect on the freedoms of speech and press
> > > because they
> > > > are very limited in term of scope and time and
> > > focus on the
> > > > consequences of the deceitful actions, not the
> > > deceitful actions
> > > > itself.
> > > >
> > > > Later in your post, you said that ideas are
> not
> > > protected and
> > > > therefore, they do not require attribution.
> But,
> > > plagiarism
> > > > is not limited to fixed copyrightable
> expressions
> > > but also
> > > > extend to all ideas. In a way, the free
> speech
> > > allows one
> > > > to plagiarize by copying ides from other
> sources
> > > without
> > > > attribution.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > If they take a substantial amount of the
> text,
> > > then YES. Copyright has
> > > > > nothing at all to do with it. The issue is
> that
> > > one should recognize the
> > > > > sources of one's ideas when those sources
> are
> > > known. That not only is fair
> > > > > and ethical, but it BROADENS the practice of
> > > free speech because it allows
> > > > > others to investigate further. The
> advancement
> > > of knowledge is not
> > > > > furthered by hiding the sources of one's
> works.
> > > Quite the opposite is true.
> > > > > By listing sources, one helps others check
> and
> > > improve one's works.
> > > >
> > > > You are mixing ethics with legality. Is
> copyright
> > > infringement
> > > > the same as stealing?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The issue isn't necessarily one of lawsuits.
> > > The concept does not need to
> > > > > be legally enforced, but it should be
> ethically
> > > enforced. For example,
> > > > > historians that have "borrowed" from others
> > > without attribution and
> > > > > subsequently have been outed aren't
> necessarily
> > > sued, but their works become
> > > > > suspect, as well they should. Thus, there
> is
> > > peer pressure to attribute the
> > > > > works of others. Self-policing can work.
> The
> > > problem is that you appear to
> > > > > be saying that it is PROPER to not
> attribute.
> > > That I cannot agree with. A
> > > > > student who turns in a paper copied from a
> > > Shakespeare play should get a
> > > > > failing grade if proper attribution is not
> > > given. That is the proper
> > > > > response.
> > > >
> > > > Again, you are mixing ethics with legality.
> Note
> > > that I said
> > > > in other post that attribution is nice but it
> > > should be always
> > > > optional, meaning that not providing
> attribution
> > > should not
> > > > be made illegal.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Ideas" are not protected. I serously doubt
> > > that she copied, verbatin or
> > > > > even closely, the works of an identifiable
> other
> > > person. Hence, no
> > > > > attribution is necessary. You are
> distorting
> > > the issue of when attribution
> > > > > is needed.
> > > >
> > > > The following are also not protected:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Unfixed expressions.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Fixed uncopyrightable expressions.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Fixed copyrightable expressions that
> > > cannot be
> > > > copyrighted due to Merger Doctrine.
> > > >
> > > > 4. Fixed copyrightable expressions whose
>
=== message truncated ===
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
Received on Thu Jun 19 2003 - 21:07:45 GMT