Username or EmailPassword
Do you have a working legal definition of a "software" patent? What exists in the US are process/method patents implemented using a computer. Some of those methods could be implemented in hardware and hardware functions can be translated and implemented in software. Where do you draw the line and what working legal definition do you use? I know it when I see it?
I hate the patent mess as much as anyone, but reform is a sticker problem than some hand waving can accomplish.
Let's pretend that I find a way to compress video to 1/10 the output size of any other codec, while retaining all existing quality. This is a novel and useful invention, but if there is no software patent, then I cannot protect my methodologies. While I agree that most software patents are bad, there needs to be a way to protect a novel algorithm. Although the math itself cannot be protected, there needs to be a method to protect novel means of deriving a solution.
then I cannot protect my methodologies
And why should you do it?
Just write the codecs/apps and sell it.
Do not disclose "methodologies" if you fear clones.
If it so trivial that even children could reimplement it,
then your methodologies worth nothing. Edited 2012-07-06 18:19 UTC