Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: Taran Rampersad <>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:58:14 -0500

Ben Tilly wrote:

>On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 03:05:21 -0500, Taran Rampersad <> wrote:
>>All of this aside, if there are software patents, wouldn't they be
>>derivative of hardware patents? After all, software requires hardware in
>>the first place. So a patent on a software application would have to be
>>derived from a patent from an operating system which in turn would be
>>derived from a patent on the hardware.
>Um, no.  No more than patents on hardware requires patents on the
>raw materials from which you make that hardware.
Umm, no. You can't patent raw materials.

>The patent system is ideally meant to provide protection for people
>who come up with ideas which are hard to think up, but once you've
>seen fall into the, "well duh" category.
>Picking a random "real patent" consider intermittent windshield
>wipers.  There is a patent on a type of wiper that only requires 4
>parts to build where only one moved.  (Filed in 1964, long since
>expired.)  None of those parts were patented - they were
>standard components - but that combination was.
However, when a patented item is used as part of a combination, the
derivative patented work must license the patent.

This is not new. This is the way the system works. Except, presently,
for software.

You mentioned courts in your region, and things that disagree with what
I think. Could you provide examples? We can argue theory all day, but if
court findings have differed, then we have to go with the court findings.

Taran Rampersad

"The wave of the future is not the conquest of the world by a single dogmatic creed
but the liberation of the diverse energies of free nations and free men."  John F.