Subject: Re: Examples needed against Soft Patents
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:19:50 +0900

>>>>> "jean" == jean camp <jean_camp> writes:

    jean> 4. free information: under the licensing system most
    jean> information was free. most information was beneath the
    jean> ownership of the King. So if you ever hear that
    jean> Shakespeare's plays were 'pirate' copies that is not quite
    jean> true. His material was not subject to patents and licensure
    jean> being fiction.

    jean> So I could see that the founders could have been rejecting 1
    jean> & 2, and implicitly rejecting 4.

Or perhaps combining it with 3.  The Constitution does not _require_
that Congress grant protection, it allows it to do so.  AIUI, until
the 20th century, at least, in U.S. law, you did have to register your
copyright; there was no implicit copyright.  And despite the
conventional myth in FLOSS circles, the USPTO does turn down patent
applications.  Lots of them.  Most of them.  (I don't know about
applications from Microsoft or IBM, though; it's possible those get
waved through almost automatically---many rejections are on technical
grounds that the forms were filled out incorrectly.)


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.