Why computer programs should not be patentable -- in easy-to-understand terms

[zridling]

A.J. Venter cleverly lays out the case on Why computer programs should not be patentable -- in easy-to-understand terms.

[attach]

[f0dder]

So... you wouldn't mind me posting nudie pics of you on Teh Intarwebs^TM? After all, a JPEG is "just one gigantic number".

[wraith808]

And you wouldn't mind me posting the algorithm to generate legitimate credit card numbers?  After all, it's just "one gigantic number".

[mouser]

i think there are lots of good reasons software shouldn't be patentable, but as the other posters are pointing out, the fact that a computer program can be represented as a number is not one of them

[zridling]

So... you wouldn't mind me posting nudie pics of you on Teh Intarwebs^TM? After all, a JPEG is "just one gigantic number".

Not at all. Except this would be a civil crime, would it not?

And you wouldn't mind me posting the algorithm to generate legitimate credit card numbers?  After all, it's just "one gigantic number".

Wow, you got that? Again, I suppose if you did, you'd be sentenced to a long prison term.
________________________
Fill me in: How do the examples you cite validate software patents?
- Should (educational) math programs be patented?
- Should public voting software be patented?
- Should spreadsheet programs used by the government be patented?

If numbers are used to certify, support evidence (such as DNA), verify, bill, or compensate, shouldn't their code be open to inspection?

[wraith808]

We're not saying that software patents are good as is, we're refuting that his argument justifies why they shouldn't exist. There is a difference between the assertions. (And no, having the algorithm isn't grounds for jail time, depending on how you arrived at it)

[JavaJones]

Remember the difference between patents and *copyright*...

- Oshyan

[f0dder]

I believe in patents - including software patents - just not in their current state.

[rxantos]

I do believe in patents, but for a limited time. 5 to 10 years at most.

Not for 30, 50, 85, 100, etc that are now.

[Eóin]

Software patents can work, but at the moment they're a farce. That number analogy doesn't really hold water though.

[Carol Haynes]

It's a bit like saying you shouldn't patent anything because it is exactly the same as lots of other things.

Actually I agree that the patents system we have now is broken (and so is copyright). Trouble is there are too many vested interests to ever get it fixed.

Example - Beethoven's music as first published is still copyright because the publishers can renew the copyright ad nauseam. Technically the music isn't copyright but the printed edition is - not sure how that works, presumably it is the page layout and the mistakes that crept in that sustain the copyright claim.

The recent example of Facebook trying to claim book was a trademark belonging to them shows the ludicrous nature of it all.

I'm surprised that Apple hasn't patented the letter i yet - maybe someone should and then sue Apple for gazzillions (oops that should be gazzllons - don't want to nfrnge).

[nudone]

(i might be making this all up but, i thought Apple had already had a go at someone for daring to use the "i" at the start of their name. or am i just thinking of the EasyJet case?)

[wraith808]

(i might be making this all up but, i thought Apple had already had a go at someone for daring to use the "i" at the start of their name. or am i just thinking of the EasyJet case?)

Nope... not the 'i'... that would be silly... right?  But the Pod on the other hand...

http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/51726-apple-wants-the-word-pod-all-to-itself