2 Jan
2006
2 Jan
'06
6:40 a.m.
Of course, whether Dave cares about patents in the USA
is another
matter, seeing as how he's in Canada.
Forgive me for quoting out of order, but I wanted to make this point first.
I have no interest in patenting any part of this particular program (in the
USA or Canada), for several reasons:
- A patent would serve to suppress use of the idea. It may not be obvious
from recent "debates", but the whole point of ImageDisk is NOT about this
one program, but it is about the documented image format, and in allowing
people to explore other means than just my IMD command to access the
data (which is one reason why the format is in the public domain). A patent
on any part of the process would serve only to restrict future access.
- I have no reason to patent any part of it, as I have no current or projected
revenue stream to protect.
- I personally disagree with the general notion of a software patent (most of
the patents that I am aware of are not what I would personally consider to be
unique/original enough that they should have such protection - there are a
couple of exeptions).
- Most important!
There is nothing in the program which I believe to be patentable! Figuring
out what is passing under the head of a disk drive and reading that data into
a file is NOT "rocket science" ... It's just a matter of groking the data
sheets
for the disk controller...
It's
essentially 'published' now. Doesn't that mean a 'prior art'
defense will work?
Most places, I think so. But in the USA, there's traditionally been a
one-year grace period between publication and unpatentability. (I put
it that way because whether it's still so I don't know.)