Then you do not understand what software is. Without the hardware it is meaningless gibberish, perhaps you should read a little history about computers.

Then you do not understand what software does.

I already showed it does not happen - Thieves always come up for an excuse for their theft.

Neither is search for property lines. Neither is reading code. Do you have a point?

You have not articulated a theory of property rights, so really you just emoting. This site is for reason.

All IP rights are justified. You did not read the article and you are just a poser who has no principled idea of what property rights are.

Searching for patent filings is anything but simple, it won't surface patents in progress that haven't yet issued, and it can be very expensive if you engage professionals who know how to properly translate real world concepts into the formal language of patent claims. Likewise, not all prior art is online and much of what is might be locked behind pay walls.

it's funny. Locke thought so over 300 years ago. Please provide something other than a blanket statement. on what basis do you make this determination, jdg?

Actually, if a small bit of code in question can't be reasonably represented in any other way in the programming language it is written in, the legal concept of idea/expression merger comes into play and you might be able to legally copy that code fragment verbatim.

sjatkins could not be more right about the damage being inflicted by software patents. As a programmer and lawyer I see them as a tremendous drag on innovation and to be totally candid I have yet to read a software patent that actually achieved its theoretical Constitutional objective of trading a limited time monopoly on the application of a useful and novel invention for its disclosure to the public.

Patents are supposed to teach those skilled in the art how to actually accomplish something, but in practice the vast majority of software patents read like elevator pitches for new dot com ventures or boil down to something from the lips of Captain Obvious.

The really sad thing is that most Law Schools push the lie that no real world programmer would write a single of line of code but for the chance that it might lead to a software patent. In truth the majority of software patents are applied for to defend against other patents or as a lure to attract venture capital because everyone else is filing them.

I'd have to strongly disagree with the notions that software's "only purpose is to tell an electronic circuit to do something specific" and that "no one is using the software in any artistic fashion".

When I write code, I do so for the purpose of illuminating my thought processes for myself and anyone else who might want to modify my code in the future. There is an entire movement called Literate Programming that calls on programmers to craft systems that can stand on their own as works of literature.

The fact that I can express myself within the formal constraints of a programming language, selecting from a myriad of alternative ways of making a program achieve my desired end in no way takes away from its qualitative nature as an "artistic performance".

I also write software and want it protected, but only for a reasonable time. Once software, or any IP, is taken off the market, continued copyright protection achieves nothing except to prevent others from improving on your code. This prevents innovation rather than rewarding it, and therefore is unconstitutional (because it defeats the purpose, stated in the Constitution, that justifies the awarding of any IP rights and the resulting exception to freedom of speech).

It SHOULD only protect the artistic expression. In reality, the DMCA and its sequels protect all manner of illegitimate "rights", including the "right" to dictate how people use their copy of your product after they've bought and paid for it.

Even if you establish that some IP rights are justified, it's a long leap to assume that anything close to the IP scheme we have now is justified -- especially when talking about works whose copyright terms have been extended by decades AFTER they were produced. I don't think it's legitimate or constitutional ever to do that.

The point is the very valid question of what is and is not a valid type of property to consider for which forms of protection. That question takes much deeper consideration than just support for individual rights and poperty generally. It gets into what should be considered property and whether there are degrees of "property" as far as appropriate legal protections.

My logic is fine and I know a LOT about software. Check your attitude. A sort algorithm, for instance, is certainly not a way of wiring an electronic circuit. The wiring doesn't change one iota when you run a program. That is the entire point of a general purpose computer after all.

What you are saying is that no one independently duplicates an invention. This solves the moral issue by pretending it never happens.

I do agree that someone who lies about inventing independently is a thief.

From a moral perspective it is absolutely fair. Over and over again infringers pretend they invented something independently. They are thieves and you are supporting theft. That is immoral

except all you had to do was do a simple search. It is part of the inherent risk an inventor takes when looking for a claim to a property right for his invention. It happens every day that inventors who spent much time and capital are not granted a patent because there is existing prior art out there that came before. Fact of life. You have succeeded in fatiguing me william, I'm going to step away from the conversation. I had hoped we would have focused on the article and Locke. Another day.

There are legal and moral issues are involved. From a legal issue, second is not the inventor, no question about it.

From a moral perspective, I don't think the fact that someone else came up with the same thing removes your moral rights to the fruit of your labor.

Yes I did but you purposely ignored the answer - second is not the inventor - PERIOD. If you are not the inventor, then you do not have property rights.

I have not yet had time to read the article, and will hopefully contribute more specifically later, as there are a lot of good discussion points on all sides. (One of those days I wish this were the "real" Gulch, and I lived there.)

But on this point I can say that in my experience as a software developer, either as a full-time employee or as a contractor, you always have to sign an agreement saying that any software you write that may have value as an "invention" (I'm not sure if that's the correct terminology. Let's just say if you write some software for a project that the company can resell or make money from), it belongs to the company.

Your more general point may also make sense in some software situations I have had experience with: if I have an idea for a software product that is unique but would require a team to develop, i.e., too much to develop on my own, I might present the idea or design to a software development company (after getting a non-disclosure agreement) and if they agree on its potential value we may come to some sort of agreement to share the rights and develop jointly.

The initial question by CBJ was about independent invention. DB's response addressed the simultaneous, but not the independent aspect of the issue. It is a legitimate question, "appeal to authority" doesn't provide an answer.

If the patent is broadly written, it will cover a vast number of ways that something can be done. Copyright, on the other hand, covers the way that the person did it.

ah, so it's not just software patents. Now you're jumping on the simultaneous invention bandwagon. There has been extensive research on this. It was determined to not be an issue. Within the infinite ways invention can and will happen, where would the statistical liklihood fall on that? But used as a fear-mongering argument, well, that is effective in weakening patent law.

almost all inventions have an artistic component and a practical component. People get patents on building and architectural inventions all the time. This is something patent attorneys figure out every day when they are dealing with an invention. what's the artistic part of the invention and what are the functional elements. This is part of the patent process.