2 Jan
2006
2 Jan
'06
1:51 p.m.
Note, following discussion is mainly "banter" because as noted in my last
post, I don't think there is anything sufficently unique to be patentable in
this case.
This I do agree with (even though I don't like the fact that we have to think
this way), and if I felt there was sufficent cause for concern that the ability
to analyze a floppy disk could get "taken away from us", then I would persue
means to protect it, however as stated earlier, I do not believe this is the
case.
We do have some protection. I have stated copyright on the code, and have
evidence as to my creation dating back when I started the project in the middle
of last year (and FDC experience predating that by many years). I have given
out copies of it to a few people along the way who could be called upon to give
evidence. I have also just "published" the code in a viewable form.
There are also other members of this list who have done significant work along
these lines - a "newcomer" would be very hard pressed to show "original
content" - Like I said earlier, read and understand the data books, and you are
most of the way there.
And lets face it - commercial interest in floppy disks (let alone old ones) is
not exactly at an all time high.... (I really do think we are quite safe).
Not much I can say in response to this ... it's true and it sux.
Yes, this is another major factor - Even if I did think it was patentable, I
would think hard about the expense of persuing it - I would probably
instead place it into the public domain.
The only reason I mentioned the word "patent" in the first place, is that
it would appear that some of the people most opposed to my source code
policy were confusing the idea of "Copyright" and "Patent". By stating
that
I have not applied for nor received any patents, I was driving home the
point that I do not claim ownership in any way of the ideas, techniques and
algorithms used in ImageDisk.
If that is the case, then the system is truly broken (I mean more than we
already know it is) - I don't care how you slice it, taking an idea that some
schmuck thought of and published but decided not to buy his lawyer a
new boat in the process does not constitute "invention".
--
dave04a (at) Dave Dunfield
dunfield (dot) Firmware development services & tools: www.dunfield.com
com Collector of vintage computing equipment:
http://www.parse.com/~ddunfield/museum/index.html
- A patent
would serve to suppress use of the idea. [...]
A patent *can* serve to supporess
use of the idea. It does not have
to; indeed, a number of organizations have purely defensive patents,
and at one point I heard of a "Free Patent Foundation", which If you want to allay any fears that any putative
patents could be
turned to evil ends in the future, you could grant an irrevocable,
perpetual, *sublicensable* license to someone the community trusts (my
Although I understand what you are saying, it's kind of like "I beat my head
against the wall because it feels so good when I stop" - In this case, we are
discussing putting a "lock" on intellectual property just so that we can give
out the keys...(notwithstanding the argument below).
- I have no
reason to patent any part of it, as I have no current or
projected revenue stream to protect.
That is not the only reason for a patent. A patent also serves to
prevent anyone else from patenting the same thing (and then using that
patent to prevent you or others from practicing the technique). - I personally
disagree with the general notion of a software patent
So do I. But given the
broken legal system we live in, occasionally it
is necessary to use the tools the system gives, even though they are
tools usually turned to distasteful ends. - Most
important!
There is nothing in the program which I believe to be patentable!
This is an excellent reason, and quite likely true from what I've read
of ID.
There's also the point that getting a patent tends to be expen$ive,
though I don't know just how much so, and without the revenue stream
you pointed out you don't have, that money has to come from somewhere
else. It's a tradeoff between the risk that someone else will get a
patent and enforce it against you, versus the cost of getting (or at
least attempting to get) the patent yourself.
So far in my own case it's always come down against going for the
patent. I expect it will in your case too.... I don't
know USA patent law in great detail, but doesn't this refer
to publication by the applicant of the patent
What I've read of the situation in the USA leads me to think that the
relationship, if any, between the entity publishing the work and the
entity applying for the patent is completely irrelevant.