
You can't patent movies or music. So why are there software patents? - libovness
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/16/6152655/you-cant-patent-movies-or-music-so-why-are-there-software-patents
======
jolene_brain
"Meanwhile, computer software is eligible for copyright protection, making
patents unnecessary to reward software innovation."

Copyright protection doesn't provide the author protection from their ideas
being copied and distributed by other entities. Copyrights only ensure that a
specific embodiment of an idea (e.g. source code) is protected from being
redistributed without the author's consent. Patents, on the other hand, do
provide protection to an inventor for their ideas.

Movies and music as discrete, creative works are not patent-able. But novel
methods for creating movies and music can certainly be patented. The same is
true for software. The code itself isn't eligible for patent application, but
the ideas behind them are. And I think the author of the linked article
disingenuously conflates the two ideas in order to advance their argument.

Let's say a programmer invents a new method for quickly factoring prime
numbers and develops it into a C library and begins selling it. I buy a
license to use the library and eventually figure out how it works. Software
copyrights prevent me from redistributing the original library, but I can
create my own based on that programmer's idea and distribute it as my own.
However, if that programmer patents their factoring process, then they have
protection against my new implementation from undercutting theirs.

Patents can provide protection to entities that have invested heavily in
researching and developing their ideas by preventing someone else from reaping
their benefits. Likewise, they can foster innovation by forcing other entities
to solve similar problems in novel ways. But that's not really what's
happening with software patents right now. The system obviously needs to be
modernized, but that can't happen without an honest debate from both sides.

