Talk:Software patents under TRIPs Agreement/Archives/2016

Untitled

This is real crap as TRIPS 27 does not mean Software has to be regarded a "field of technology"

You have also consider the wording of TRIPS 10 which says that software has to be protected under the berne convention. --Anonymous

The article does not state that software has to be regarded a field of technology. This is exactly the controversial point. Maybe the solution lies in the proper defintion of the word software, and the distinction between computer programs and inventions in a field of technology such as the field of computer science or the field of information technology for instance, don't you think so? --Edcolins 21:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Another issue may be that "software ideas" are not 'inventions' and software authors are not inventors. Furthermore software is not an industrial good but a service as all immaterial goods.

International law says that software has to be equal literary works and protected whatever may be the mode of expression. furthermore it is hard to split software in software and concepts of software as software is conceptual per se. And: there is no real difference of object/runtime code and source code which both can be edited while source code is just a more abstract definition, an abstraction that is transformed("compiled") in a more maschine related form of expression. "executable" is maschine code as well as source code that could be intrepreted as well. Many programming languages such as Prolog are pure logic, pure conceptual. As software is already protected by copyright market there is no reason to protect software on a conceptual level by patent law, because those ideas/concepts etc. do not have any value worth to get protected.

If there are no "inventions" in the meaning of patent law I don't see a legal obligation to apply patent law.

The second test is field of technology, I do not think that servies are tehcnical in the meaning of patent law or that patents were meant for services.

I wonder whether it is the purpose of TRIPs to lay down patentability standards as the aim of Trips is that patents are not misused as trade barriers.

I found an intresting paper of Jagdish Bhagwati (former WTO/free trade advocate) from 2002: http://www.columbia.edu/~jb38/FT%20Submission%20on%20IP%20&%20Medicines%20091502.pdf

On 15:45, 10 Jan 2005, 81.224.82.98 gave this comment:

But on the other hand, this reasoning fails both ways when taken to extreme. If the authors copyright where to preempt other laws, it would of course mean that authors could publish illegal content. Or, if governments where allowed to preempt copyright with patents covering the underlying reason to write software, in perfect analogy to that music in audible form is the reason that the musician wrote it, the international treaty becomes worthless. The government would thus say that a companys right to earn money through a monopoly is more important than freedom of expression. The answer lies somewhere inbetween. This leads to that this question is not about existing law, it is about politics - lawmaking. It all boils down to whats fair - is it fair to prejudice the copyright of a profession in favour of private monopolies on authors reasons to write and publish?

Not sure what the end means, the latingage of the last sentence partly contradicts itself at the end. Whatever, it was a discussion contribution so moved it here.

Summary of 2000 quote from Paul Hartnack

John, thanks for your message on my talk page. I see your point, and have now tried to clarify the section instead of removing the paragraph. Still, regarding the economic aspect of the quote, perhaps we should insert something about that aspect. Patent law is supposed to serve some economic purposes... --Edcolins (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

thanks Edcolins, that looks fine, I've added a sentence on economic interest --Jalfro 19:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalfro (talk • contribs)

Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)