Re: You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

Dear Eddy,


> Part of Christian's argument is that the author of software should - by
> the laws covering literary works - be guaranteed full liberty to
> distribute that copyright work, just as I am fully at liberty to write
> an academic paper (or journalistic article) describing any patented
> idea, as long as I do so in my own words, without copying from others.
> I don't know how far that reasoning can be dragged, but it does point to
> an interesting issue -

>if the compiled program is a machine that can
> infringe a patent,

It most definately is not a machine under international law.

The TRIPS treaty says

"Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as
literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)"

There is no question of a program becoming an invention when it is compiled.

>then it can't be a literary work, in which case the
> software industry loses the ability to restrict copying of compiled code
> (i.e. you can give your friends copies of your operating system even if
> it isn't open source - albeit you can't distribute the source without
> the author's consent).

This is why in reality, arguments that copyright does not extend to the
performance of a program are nonsense. It would be like saying that when a
CD is played on a player or a radio station, the copyright would end because
it was a "method of operation" for a chip. This is not what copyright means
when it excludes "methods of operation" from it's scope. It simply means
that you cannot describe a process in a book and inherit patent holders
rights to it.

The protection extends "by any means and in any form". (WIPO Copyright
Treaty)



> If I write a program in pseudo-code that outlines an algorithm, my
> writing is expressive, so protected by copyright; to claim that it
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Expression is the work in any means and in any form, not just the lines of
code.

> infringes a patent, you must show how the pseudo-code performs the
> computation; which it doesn't, because we haven't compiled it.
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Again this is a legal myth- computation and computer program are synonymous.

The Software copyright directive proves this conclusively,

 "the permanent or temporary reproduction of a computer program by any means
and in any form, in part or in whole.

 Insofar as loading, displaying, running, transmission or storage "

 However,
> that distinction doesn't work, because there are interpreted languages
> which are designed to be expressive - the source is what the computer
> runs.  However, since it's *performing* the patented acts that is
> covered by a patent, not *describing the means to do so*, there is a
> strong case that source code should never be construed to infringe a
> patent, even if anyone who runs it does infringe.

The performance is already defined under copyright. It includes digital
performance of the work. Again this is misinformation generated by patent
lawyers to try and claim that a "computer program" and the process it
conducts are seperate entities. This is not so in reality.


Kindest Regards,

Christian