Re: You have rights.. Software Patents are Illegal

That text is not part of the treaty itself. The treaty only says in
article 10:

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

The "e.g." part is a part of an overview of the TRIPS Agreement:

A more detailed overview of the TRIPS Agreement
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm#copyright

By the way, the analytical index says that, so far, there has been no
jurisprudence related to article 10:

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/trips_01_e.htm#article10B

A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 12:26, João Miguel Neves escreveu:
> A Qui, 2004-05-13 às 00:56, Christian Beauprez escreveu:
> > 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.
> > 
> And if there was any question you have this (Article 10.1 is the one
> Christian quoted above - note particularly the part that says "...that
> only those limitations..."):
> 
> Article 10.1 provides that computer programs, whether in source or
> object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne
> Convention (1971). This provision confirms that computer programs must
> be protected under copyright and that those provisions of the Berne
> Convention that apply to literary works shall be applied also to them.
> It confirms further, that the form in which a program is, whether in
> source or object code, does not affect the protection. The obligation to
> protect computer programs as literary works means e.g. that only those
> limitations that are applicable to literary works may be applied to
> computer programs. It also confirms that the general term of protection
> of 50 years applies to computer programs. Possible shorter terms
> applicable to photographic works and works of applied art may not be
> applied.
> 
> (Source: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm)
> 
> > >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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Free-sklyarov-uk mailing list
> > Free-sklyarov-uk-Sspga/[email protected]
> > http://mailman.xenoclast.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov-uk
-- 
						João Miguel Neves

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBAo6puGFkMfesLN9wRAlB6AJ9tC/9pmf4tcU7ZfPstDr8bzjzciQCfehD0
Rx1skOHCK1PmFY9n+mesWR8=
=3CS1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----