Anyone knows of patents?

Nikolas · Mon 31/08/2009 07:53:43

...

Yes, I have a laywer, and yes I am researching on my own and with help.

Still, it might be interesting to see what you people think.

Of course, I can't disclose anything, but what makes me wonder is that I was browsing through the entire catalogue on WIPO and I found a few (eg. less than 10) entries dealing with interactive elements (or adaptive if you will) in music! Which made me wonder on two questions:
a. Why so few? Aren't there alternative ways to do things?
b. Actually most of them seemed to be dealing with the same basic idea, so where exactly is the protection if 3-4 parties have the same idea, then?

(and c. There seems to be a strong movement against patents on software, which seems a tad strange, any comments on that?)

I hope this is a somewhat interesting thread. $:-\$

Azaron · Mon 31/08/2009 09:43:49

Generally, patents cover a physical process or product, and copyrights protect ideas and written works. The reason there are not that many software patents probably has to do with the idea that software is generally considered to be intellectual in nature rather than physical and a patent won't protect your rights to something as long as a copyright will. You get one copyright on your idea, you're done. It's protected until you've been dead about 25 years. I can't remember exactly how long the term is on a patent, but I do know that if you miss a window to renew it, it becomes public domain. Even if you do renew a patent, it can only be renewed so many times before it's considered public domain.

That's what my previous research into the whole thing yielded for me, anyway.

fred · Mon 31/08/2009 09:54:47

Sounds strange with so few patents in such a wide field. And there should be some difference between the different ideas. Tell us what you're working on Nikolas. Surely you can say more than 'adaptive elements in music' without revealing too much

About the movement against software patents, it argues that in US where software patents are allowed, innovation is becoming difficult for small software developers because they can (and in many cases do) get sued by the corporations whenever they come up with something that unintentionally breaks an existing patent. Microsoft, IBM, and other big players have so many patents that it's impossible for small company to know them all. Personally I think great algorithms should be public knowledge like great mathematical proofs, and that copyrights would suffice for software products.

Nikolas · Mon 31/08/2009 10:41:12

Quote from: Azaron on Mon 31/08/2009 09:43:49
Generally, patents cover a physical process or product, and copyrights protect ideas and written works. The reason there are not that many software patents probably has to do with the idea that software is generally considered to be intellectual in nature rather than physical and a patent won't protect your rights to something as long as a copyright will. You get one copyright on your idea, you're done. It's protected until you've been dead about 25 years. I can't remember exactly how long the term is on a patent, but I do know that if you miss a window to renew it, it becomes public domain. Even if you do renew a patent, it can only be renewed so many times before it's considered public domain.

That's what my previous research into the whole thing yielded for me, anyway.

Actually that's quite off from the truth and I DO KNOW that!

Ideas are NOT protected by copyright, but from patents (and if so). Algorithms in Greece are NOT protected by patent, however, but by copyright (which is absurd really). Code, but the EXACT CODE is protected by copyright, as some kind of work of art (but the exact CODE. If you alter the code to the same result there is NO copyright infrigment).

Copyrights last a number of years after the owners death (composer, for example), and last I checked in the EU was 70 years! (WOW!)

There IS no registration need for work of arts (where copyright does apply) and there is no window to be missed for a work of art to become public domain. This was happening quite a few years ago (before the 60s even I think, when if you didn't have te (C) sign, your work was considered a part of PD. And Stravinsky but Ligetti as well have been fooled by this (and by Disney and Kubric respectively).

Patents last a total of 20 years (at least international patents) and they do NOT stop from an idea to be expanded upon, or used for scientific purposes; on the contrary: It provides all the information on the scientific discovery, so that other people can expand on it. What it DOES is that it stops the commercial usage of that device/idea/etc.

Sorry for this reply, but your post was filled completely with misunderstanding and faulty information.

Fred: There is an international database (with around 1,6 million entries, since 1978) where I put the two words "music playback" and I got a total of 146 results with only around dealing with adaptive/interactive elements in playback.

And thanks for the info on the movement against software patents. It kinda makes sense, since the big beasts put tons of money on code development. They can't just allow everyone to dig in and take part.

Mr Flibble · Mon 31/08/2009 12:13:12

Software copyrights are hilarious, you can patent something as vague as "a system for communicating between clients with a graphical interface" and then sue every Tom, Dick and Harry under the sun.

Radiant · Mon 31/08/2009 19:09:38

Quote from: Mr Flibble on Mon 31/08/2009 12:13:12
Software copyrights are hilarious, you can patent something as vague as "a system for communicating between clients with a graphical interface" and then sue every Tom, Dick and Harry under the sun.

And not just software, either...

m0ds · Tue 01/09/2009 00:00:45

Well if that's the case...I just patented "software that allows you to create your own adventure game"

Time to pay up, CJ!

SSH · Tue 01/09/2009 09:34:48

Unfortuantely, if CJ can prove "prior art", i.e. he did it first, then your patent is worthless...

Radiant · Tue 01/09/2009 17:47:35

Quote from: Mods on Tue 01/09/2009 00:00:45
Well if that's the case...I just patented "software that allows you to create your own adventure game"

Infocom wants a word with you

m0ds · Tue 01/09/2009 20:05:40

Hehehe, gah! Right, well in that case Im going to patent "any kind of tale within any kind of kingdom" .. pay up, Radiant!!!!111 Sorry, I'll shuddup now. Wallace & Gromit got patents, so surely that means anyone can!1!

Atelier · Tue 01/09/2009 20:20:58

Wallace and Gromit deserve patents to protect their cheese.

Mr Flibble · Tue 01/09/2009 21:59:07

I'm afraid I have a patent covering "lighthearted exchanges over IP based protocols" and have issued legal papers against each of you.

Phemar · Tue 01/09/2009 22:35:51

I have a patent on patenting. Anyone wanna patent anything, you gotta get through me.

Radiant · Tue 01/09/2009 23:19:55

In that case, I'll patent the letter 'e'. Good luck pat'nting anything without using my pat'nt l'tt'r.

Mr Flibble · Wed 02/09/2009 00:51:14

I'd lik- to r-f-r you two g-ntl-m-n to my pr-vious post.

Anyone knows of patents?

m0ds

m0ds