From: James Wetterau (jwjr@ignition.name.net)
Date: Sat Mar 18 2000 - 19:37:39 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker says:
> > Patents don't cover ideas. Any IP lawyer will tell you that. Patents
> > cover implementations. There has to be an implementation, and *only*
> > that particular implemented technique is covered. No fundamental
> > algorithms or ideas are covered.
>
> No, actually patents _do_ apply to the ideas as well. Copyrights
> don't apply to ideas, just particular expressions of them--but that's
> not the case with patents. If you patent a gadget, and someone else
> uses your design to build a similar gadget using different materials
> and slight modifications, but still clearly based on your ideas, he
> is infringing under present law.
Yeah. You are correct, I misspoke. What I was trying to get at is
that in no sense do you "own an idea". What you get ownership of is
the right to profit from a particular useful idea for a limited period
of time. This goes further in that there is some magic dividing line
in the law between what's fundamental and therefore beyond coverage.
Anyway, the point I was making is that the law doesn't recognize
ownership of ideas, per se.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:30 MST