Copyright covers implementations, not ideas. I have no moral objection to truly novel inventions in computer science being protected by patents. An innovative search algorithm, a compression scheme, etc. Its shit when MP3s and GIFs were encumbered, but they were genuine inventions whose sharing publicly genuinely advanced the public good.
The kind the patent trolls use are not innovative in the same way. We need a stricter definition of obvious to one versed in the art, not a ban throughout the field.
I'm pretty sure that if you rewrote Harry Potter from scratch with new names and wording (redoing the implementation) and published that, you would still get in trouble. So copyright is somewhat broader than you think.
Of course there are grey areas, and it's appropriate that they're decided by the courts. I'm sure nobody would argue that a lossy copy of a work protected by copyright can still infringe, even if the lossiness was deliberate and intended to differentiate it from the original to a minimal degree.
Copyright of literary characters is one of the harder ones to define, and perhaps a system more like patents would be more appropriate for them, but that's neither here nor there.
Let's stick to computer science for a while. Imagine I have come up with a sorting algorithm for integers with significantly better time complexity than existing options. I can describe that in any number of programming languages, in natural language, in pictographs, etc. It's a skill that people can learn, or a tool that could be embedded in silicon and used for financial gain. Doesn't that sound more like an invention than a creative work? Shouldn't patents be the best fit?
Don't get me wrong, copyright and patent systems the world over hace significant class, but for us as software engineers to declare that patents shouldn't apply to our work because it is somehow fundamentally different to the other science and engineering disciplines is just arrogance.
The problem is that algorithms and math are explicitly forbidden from being patented. This is why most software patents include some sort of clause specifying that the work is done using a computer.
The patent office has simply done a lousy job when it comes to software patents.
I hadn't heard it explained this way before, but it explains so much.
So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
That's not how it works in Europe; just saying "done on a computer" is explicitly not enough. There's a concept called "technical effect" that's been worked over in the courts and well developed in the last decade (I'll leave you to look it up, eg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_E...).
I'm a bit out of the loop but whilst USA started letting pretty much anything in there seem to have tightened up over the years.
There's a parallel with business methods too. In both cases there been a move towards a middleground - harmonisation. Personally I feel the USA position is far worse and this harmonisation is not good; liberalisation of soft-pat and business method patents on Europe would be a big loss IMO.
>So, for example, if I came up with a better sorting algorithm, I couldn't patent Luca Sort, but I could patent using a computer to run the Luca Sort algorithm? Or am I misunderstanding?
That was how the law was until recently. But the supreme court found that "just do it on a computer" no longer counts.
I don't believe you are correct. You can't patent math, but you can patent algorithms. This is analogous to the material world, where you can't patent physics, but you can patent engineering.
An algorithm isn't math, it's a series of instructions. That is something that is patentable, as long as it involves an inventive step.
A more efficient sorting algorithm that is non-obvious would almost certainly be patentable.
You're partially correct. Algorithms can't be patented. However, in practice, patent drafters work around this by adding phrases such as "A memory with computer readable instructions to [Insert Algorithm]" to turn the algorithm into an invented product. The bottom line is that the invention is the memory and the processor system whose novelty is that it includes instructions which implement the particular steps of the algorithm. This practically covers all implementations of the algorithm on Von Neumann machines, in effect covering all current implementations of the algorithm.
Anything you can do in software I can do with a set of hydraulic value). Your software will be faster (a video game on my valves will take several lifetimes to display the opening), but it will work (until something leaks). thus you can translate your program to hydraulics and it is patentable.
The first sentence on the Wikipedia page of algorithm:
"In mathematics and computer science, an algorithm is a self-contained sequence of actions to be performed. Algorithms can perform calculation, data processing and automated reasoning tasks. "
An algorithm is a mathematical construct that happens to be useful with computers. See the first volume of The Art of Computer Programming for a nice formal definition of algorithm.
As a holder of dozens of patents, many of them on processes derived from algorithms, I fully understand (as well as anyone can) the implications of current case law. In order to patent an algorithm, you have to re-cast it as an operation to be performed on a general purpose computer. As long as you do that, you have the patent. I fully agree that there's nothing to stop you from calculating GIF's with pencil and paper, or on an abacus, or in your head -- is that a relevant distinction, or merely an academic one?
Additionally, the algorithm has to be non-trivial, which I take to mean multi-step, for it to be patentable when it's transformed into an operation performed on a general-purpose computer. Simply multiplying by a constant, even when done on a general purpose computer, is not patentable.
You must be kidding, Harry Potter is nothing like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, unless you consider magical candy to be the most important part of the story. :)
Philosopher's Stone has quite a few direct correspondences. The letter/golden ticket, the factory/Hogwarts (I could go on, but it would require me to reread it, not that that would be a bad thing). The unjustly discriminated against kid is another Dahl trope (although not one in CF per se). And more generally, the style is very similar. Beyond the first book it diverges, however.
Copyright considers things a unique work if less than something like 10% is copied. Harry Potter is in no danger. Even changing the golden ticket to a letter is enough to get around infringement there.
Of course consult a lawyer if the 10% figure above it important to your copy - there are lots of details that I don't know.
I only felt the need to establish enough similarity to demonstrate that the joke was funny, not so much the Dahl estate could take Rowling's hard-earned money. :)
The literary characters and other proper nouns in a series may be covered by trademark. Copyright only covers the specific expression of the text. Patent, of course, does not apply to fiction plots.
So if you scrupulously avoided character names and quotes from the original work, you can indeed rewrite the same plot and story arcs in your own words, and not be in conflict with the law.
That will be of no solace when lawyers for the Harry Potter media empire pursue you anyway. Just as you did not break the law in a technical, letter-of-the-law sense, so is it also possible for an entity with great wealth to make someone with lesser wealth miserable, without breaking the law.
It is far easier to rip off a nobody, or someone who is dead. For instance, rewrite Amber without Corwin or Merlin in it; make superficial modifications to all named characters and locations. Maybe you get some fans that never read the original; maybe you get some that did read it, and like your version better.
Nope, it's too wishy-washy for you to judge the potential for violation in a forum post. The 4 criteria have to be interpreted with respect to the situation at hand, and hypotheticals are almost impossible to interpret rationally.
Republishing single sentences has previously been found to be a copyright violation, and copyright has been granted on as few as three notes. On the other hand (to pick a recent example), 50 Shades of Grey, originally written as a Twilight fan-fiction (derivative by definition) was never pursued for copyright violation (AFAIK).
Copyright law apparently makes an explicit exception for translations. (i.e. translations are subject to copyright despite usually sharing literally no wording with the original.)
It isn't clear to me whether that only covers works in a foreign language that claim to be translations of some other work, or whether it would apply to any foreign-language work that duplicates the plot of an earlier copyrighted work.
The thing to remember with copyright is it covers copying. If you read a book and rewrite it in another language you didn't copy it, you copied the ideas, perhaps, but copyright covers expression and not ideas.
Like I said, the copyright law makes an explicit exception for "translations". Copyright also covers translations, despite the fact that they share none of the "expression" of the original.
Creating a translation of a work is a derivative work itself. This applies to porting software from C++ to Java as well as translating of Harry Potter to French.
Re-writing a story and translation are different things entirely.
If I describe at an abstracted level the working of a C++ program to you and you implement it in Java then you have not copied the work, nor even created a derivative, ergo clean-room implementation being a thing.
Patents cover implementations, not ideas. Ideas are not patentable. Neither are algorithms. The implementation of an idea in a machine is patentable in most places in the world. The implementation of an algorithm on a machine is patentable in the U.S.
We need better understanding of existing definitions so that we don't rehash the same arguments over and over again.
Nope. Disagree. Look at claim construction in a patent "a fixing means", for example, isn't an implementation it's an element of an idea. A patent application has to include a concrete implementation but the claims - which define the patent legally - are always broader than the specific implementation and will cover multiple implementations that use the inventive concept.
Thus, a new product that's never been made before can infringe an existing patent. The implementation is new but the _idea_ is not.
Proving that a patent's claims cover disparate implementations is how you successfully defend yourself against patent lawsuits. If a patent's claims are ambiguous enough to cover multiple, novel implementations it is by definition "overly broad" and will be ruled invalid.
Claim drafting is a specific broadening process - overly broad claims (I'm coming primarily from a UK perspective [ex-professional]; I can't cite chapter and verse of EU/US but consider myself a well informed layman in those areas). Yes claims must be supported by the description (UKPA S.14, EPC Art.84, no idea for USC) and not cover a plurality of inventions but multiple independent claims specifically cover a multitude of implementations of the same invention.
The claims shouldn't cover multiple inventive concepts (called "plurality" in UK terms), as you intimate, but covering multiple _implementations_ of a single inventive concept is kinda the whole point. An example being drug patents [not my former area] where the functional chemical groups will be claimed when paired with many other standard chemical forms. Another example would be for an allowed compression algorithm that could be implemented in silicon as part of a co-processor, or which could be implemented purely in software [to gain a real technical contribution in the inventive part of course].
FWIW your cited case (discussion here is useful https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/13-298; I only get an abstract at your link; cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Corp._v._CLS_Bank_Intern...) concerns a different issue entirely, that of claims being made to a financial concept rather than an invention per se, basically the contention upheld is that the claims were to a financial fact that falls within excluded subject matter. It's nothing to do with breadth or multiplicity of implementation.
Lol I'm not a lawyer and I am not really interested in the legal distinction between idea and implementation, because if a non practicing entity can buy a patent that amounts to a few flowcharts you're just arguing silly semantics as far as I'm concerned.
I disagree with your characterization. Physical processes, expressed as "first x, then y, then z" are clearly and indisputably patentable. They can just be a series of steps performed by hand, no machine required. What is this but an algorithm?
And, for anyone who believes that algorithms can't be patented, I have a collection of GIF's and MP3's to sell you.
Patents cover implementations, not ideas. Copyright covers "artistic works" like text (files), audio, and video.
To further clarify: The purpose of copyright is to grant control over who can copy it to the creator/owner so that it can't be reproduced or embellished/modified without their permission (which was a big problem at the time serious copyright laws started being written in the US). Exceptions such as fair use exist but that's the gist of it.
Profit was a secondary concern to control believe it or not. The fear being someone would publish a copy of your work with a few damning sentences changed or added here and there with your name attached. Ruining your reputation/career which was much more important to the controlling elite (land owners) at the time than the pittance one might make from sales of their writings/art.
The purpose of patents is disclosure. Don't let anyone state otherwise because the founding fathers were pretty damned clear about it. In exchange for disclosing your invention to the world you're granted a monopoly over who can use or manufacture it.
Patents never have and never will be about something as ambiguous as, "ideas".
Considering that software can only exist as ether it should never have been considered patent-eligible. Sure, you can implement software in an FPGA and claim, "it's hardware now!" Go ahead and patent that particular configuration of an FPGA... Which would be a tangible, physical thing. You should have no right whatsoever to claim a monopoly on the mere concept of such software which is exactly what software patents are.
Allowing novel software ideas to be patented ensures common software ideas will be. The incentives are for expanding patent coverage, it's a fallible system of people and it's why we are in this mess.
