Patent a Lisp Program

Does anyone know if it is possible to patent a program
written in lisp for Autocad? Normally you have copyright but
what if your program is a design tool that greatly reduces
design time by working in a special way with AutoCAD?
It's more than just the code, it's the 'look and feel'.
It that idea patentable?

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

I have some vague memory of Microsoft patenting (or attempting to) something
like the word "Windows".

From here it seems you can patent anything in the USA. You would need to
seek professional help with a Patent Attorney to get better advice and a
guideline to cost of doing it.

You may find that you need to expose the code to public view in order to
patent it.

Having patented it, I would have serious doubts that you could get any
meaningful benefit from the exercise.

Make a rough estimate of the cost of identifying a breach of your patent and
prosecuting to recover damages.

Compare that with your potential gross sales.

--

Regards,


Laurie Comerford
www.cadapps.com.au

 

Thanks Laurie for responding.

If the program made money, I would sue. If it didn't then it probably wasn't worthwhile for a competitor to copy any way, and I wouldn't have to sue.

The thing is, a lisp will only run on the AutoCAD platform, so what is Autodesks part in this?

Are you familiar with Autotrack/Autoturn? Surely one has taken the idea from the other, yet both co-exist despite any copyrights, patents or trademarks.

It doesn't seem worthwhile to write, maintain and enhance computer programs in an environment where not only your intellectual knowledge can easily be stolen, but software pirates are illegally copying the programs themselves and distributing them for free.

Mark

 

Hi Mark,

We sell Autotrack, so I guess you could say I'm familiar with it. I've also
looked at Autoturn and find the two programs close enough in capability,
that a user familiar with one would not to change to the other.

Rather like Mac and Windows. It's a big world out there and there is room
for competition. Everyone copies ideas or goes out of business.

The best bet is to be in very close contact with your clients and build
their requirements into the software before your competitors can.

You know that some time the competitors will improve to at least your level
or go past it.

For the period before you pass them again, you need client loyalty.

Autodesk is a large corporation. They categorically recognise that their
place in the market is significantly enhanced by developers. Hence they
encourage developers and if you work in that field you will find that the
help is not ony Corporate, but also on a personal level.

If someone copies your code, then don't worry about it in a legal sense -
create new code and functionality to stay in front.

In my view and with some experience of being an Expert Witness, the cost of
adequately pursuing legal avenues is likely to be beyond the resources on
any business with less than 100 employees.

--

Regards,


Laurie Comerford
www.cadapps.com.au

 

Does anyone know if it is possible to patent a program

Look at http://www.uspto.gov/ and see if you think this qualifies. I doubt
it. Programs are normally copyrighted. Patents and copyrights are very
different. You can't copyright an idea. You can patent an invention, but a
different interface built on top of an existing product doesn't sound like
an "invention" to me.

I believe patents are much more expensive and difficult to obtain than
copyrights, because of the completely different criteria involved. And I
doubt that a patent would gain you any greater degree of protection, if it
were possible to obtain.

 

If you could do that ,

I'm sure that Steve Jobs would have made Bill Gates a non issue.

;-)

Bill

 

there's two types of Patents -- the "general summary" patent (thus, if you were the first person to submit a patent for "A device which records sounds") and then the "blueprint/working prototype" patent. the first type offers far more protection, and if you can word your code in a couple sentences that is so unique, you may qualify for this. Remember, you also receive a huge amount of not just legal protection by having Patent Pending status, but it might be a cool thing to market as well.

--Jeremiah

 

Too late, I have already thought of everything, I just dont have time to code it up <g>.

The pride we take as programmers is in implementing an idea, that is where you can brag and should.

If your idea is easy to copy, it will be copied and given out for free so fast you will not know who did it so don't
bother with thoughts of patents on simple but new things. Someone will copy it just for fun.


MarkAlexander <>
|>Does anyone know if it is possible to patent a program
|>written in lisp for Autocad? Normally you have copyright but
|>what if your program is a design tool that greatly reduces
|>design time by working in a special way with AutoCAD?
|>It's more than just the code, it's the 'look and feel'.
|>It that idea patentable?
|>
|>Mark

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

Actually, recent precedent from Supreme Court rulings have made software patents
more and more accepted. Sorry to say.

Matt

 

Thanks Guys for all the replies!

I have read many articles against patenting computer programs and frankly they are all balderdash. A computer programmer knows that his work is not like a work of fiction so copyright is not relevant.

A computer program is a machine, with specific components (subroutines) that interlock. It has cogs (loops) and requires input and produces an output just like any normal machine. It even has buttons like a machine that need to be clicked to activate some component! Comparing a computer program to a book is just rubbish, a computer program is a virtual machine and hence should be patentable just like an actual machine.

The code is almost worthless because a good programmer can emulate whatever someone else does, it's always the idea or concept which is unique.
I don't condone broad ideas, a software patent should be extremely narrow in focus and supplemented by an actual code example.

Programs, even miniscule ones can save a company thousands of dollars and I believe a programmer should be rewarded for his invention.

For those who say that it will stifle innovation I believe that a software patent should only have a short duration (say 2 years).

Mark.

 

but a patent would not prevent someone from writing it and giving it out for free.
So after all the work of documenting your idea, you have revealed exactly how to copy it.
I still think it is impossible to research if the idea is unique. As soon as you released the patent, someone would
show that their company already has a tool like yours. But they will not reveal it until you claim your patent.

To say the code is irrelevent is not true at all. I have a few routines that no one else has figured out to my
knowlege. They deal with how to dock a toolbar on a particular row, not just top, left, right.....
I would love to have others step forward and say they can do this because there are not any good "menu" state programs
out there.

Anyway, this is an interesting subject because I want to hear what the idea you have is. Now that would be a fun thread
to participate in.

MarkAlexander <>
|>Thanks Guys for all the replies!
|>
|>I have read many articles against patenting computer programs and frankly they are all balderdash. A computer programmer knows that his work is not like a work of fiction so copyright is not relevant.
|>
|>A computer program is a machine, with specific components (subroutines) that interlock. It has cogs (loops) and requires input and produces an output just like any normal machine. It even has buttons like a machine that need to be clicked to activate some component! Comparing a computer program to a book is just rubbish, a computer program is a virtual machine and hence should be patentable just like an actual machine.
|>
|>The code is almost worthless because a good programmer can emulate whatever someone else does, it's always the idea or concept which is unique.
|>I don't condone broad ideas, a software patent should be extremely narrow in focus and supplemented by an actual code example.
|>
|>Programs, even miniscule ones can save a company thousands of dollars and I believe a programmer should be rewarded for his invention.
|>
|>For those who say that it will stifle innovation I believe that a software patent should only have a short duration (say 2 years).
|>
|>Mark.

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

Forget it...it's not even worth it...

As far as you mentioning it...now everyone will be on the lookout for your
code to duplicate it...

Just kidding...

Seriously everyone that's here is just out to learn from others, and copy
what they do...not to mention big brother who setup this newsgroup for said
reason...

 

Now that you said that Rudy, you need to be nice to those code moochers that innocently ask for help.
We want to see the nice guy side of Rudy from now on <g>

"Rudy Tovar" <>
|>Forget it...it's not even worth it...
|>
|>As far as you mentioning it...now everyone will be on the lookout for your
|>code to duplicate it...
|>
|>Just kidding...
|>
|>Seriously everyone that's here is just out to learn from others, and copy
|>what they do...not to mention big brother who setup this newsgroup for said
|>reason...
|>
|>
|>
|>
|>|>> Does anyone know if it is possible to patent a program
|>> written in lisp for Autocad? Normally you have copyright but
|>> what if your program is a design tool that greatly reduces
|>> design time by working in a special way with AutoCAD?
|>> It's more than just the code, it's the 'look and feel'.
|>> It that idea patentable?
|>>
|>> Mark
|>

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

not to mention big brother who setup this newsgroup for said
reason...
<<<

Yeah,
Look how many of us have written routines in the past, and now see them as built in Acad commands. ;^)

Bill

 

Yeah, that's nothing, I actually wrote one, and had them ask me to not sumit
it to adn...then 2 years later it appeared in the new version of autocad...

 

And there's a problem with that??? I have a handful I've been beggin' to add.

 

Sorry James,
I beg to differ. The actual code is quite irrelevant. Look at Windows for instance, Bill Gates probably did not copy a single line of code from Steve Jobs, yet was able to 'steal' the look and feel of Apple OS.

This 'look and feel' is what sold Windows, not the actual code. Windows code might be clumsy and incomplete but it still does a good job of emulating the apple operating system.

The huge number of people who bought Windows did not care a darn what the actual code is, they are buying the 'look and feel'.

If Steve Jobs had invented the Apple OS in 2005 he probably could have patented it, ms would still be struggling with DOS!

More examples? What about the dozens of DVD copying programs, the dozens of text editing programs? They all have different code and yet accomplish the same thing.

Yes, apart from highly specialised algorithms (which can be protected by Copyright) the code is quite, quite irrelevant.

Please don't reply that Apple stole the idea from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre, I know the history. I'm only trying to make a point that a new paradigm is greater than the sum of all it's typed subroutines.

Mark

 

Sorry James,
I beg to differ. The actual code is quite irrelevant. Look at Windows for instance, Bill Gates probably did not copy a single line of code from Steve Jobs, yet was able to 'steal' the look and feel of Apple OS.

This 'look and feel' is what sold Windows, not the actual code. Windows code might be clumsy and incomplete but it still does a good job of emulating the apple operating system.

The huge number of people who bought Windows did not care a darn what the actual code is, they are buying the 'look and feel'.

If Steve Jobs had invented the Apple OS in 2005 he probably could have patented it, ms would still be struggling with DOS!

More examples? What about the dozens of DVD copying programs, the dozens of text editing programs? They all have different code and yet accomplish the same thing.

Yes, apart from highly specialised algorithms (which can be protected by Copyright) the code is quite, quite irrelevant.

Please don't reply that Apple stole the idea from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre, I know the history. I'm only trying to make a point that a new paradigm is greater than the sum of all it's typed subroutines.

Mark

 

well those highly specialized algorythms are the only things worth patenting!
If the code is not highly specialized, what is it?
Its just another rehash (maybe more pretty than before though).

So why arent there patenets on GUI's, or at least why arent they working?

MarkAlexander <>
|>Sorry James,
|>I beg to differ. The actual code is quite irrelevant. Look at Windows for instance, Bill Gates probably did not copy a single line of code from Steve Jobs, yet was able to 'steal' the look and feel of Apple OS.
|>
|>This 'look and feel' is what sold Windows, not the actual code. Windows code might be clumsy and incomplete but it still does a good job of emulating the apple operating system.
|>
|>The huge number of people who bought Windows did not care a darn what the actual code is, they are buying the 'look and feel'.
|>
|>If Steve Jobs had invented the Apple OS in 2005 he probably could have patented it, ms would still be struggling with DOS!
|>
|>More examples? What about the dozens of DVD copying programs, the dozens of text editing programs? They all have different code and yet accomplish the same thing.
|>
|>Yes, apart from highly specialised algorithms (which can be protected by Copyright) the code is quite, quite irrelevant.
|>
|>Please don't reply that Apple stole the idea from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre, I know the history. I'm only trying to make a point that a new paradigm is greater than the sum of all it's typed subroutines.
|>
|>Mark

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer

 

So whats your "original" idea?
Believe me, if its something simple, forget it.
If not, saying it will not hurt you because we wont be able to code it up.
Programs are information manipulators and the reason people sell stuff is they have taken the time to write it.
If I decide to copy Manusoft's Quikpik and sell it for half, I could.
Ok, stop laughing now...of course I don't know how to copy it and those who do probably dont want to look like jerks by
doing so.
Anyway, I dont care about the theoretical, lets hear your idea.

As far as the look and feel thing goes, if its truly new, you have something.
But are you going to write this new thing with lisp? Now I am cracking up.

MarkAlexander <>
|>Sorry James,
|>I beg to differ. The actual code is quite irrelevant. Look at Windows for instance, Bill Gates probably did not copy a single line of code from Steve Jobs, yet was able to 'steal' the look and feel of Apple OS.
|>
|>This 'look and feel' is what sold Windows, not the actual code. Windows code might be clumsy and incomplete but it still does a good job of emulating the apple operating system.
|>
|>The huge number of people who bought Windows did not care a darn what the actual code is, they are buying the 'look and feel'.
|>
|>If Steve Jobs had invented the Apple OS in 2005 he probably could have patented it, ms would still be struggling with DOS!
|>
|>More examples? What about the dozens of DVD copying programs, the dozens of text editing programs? They all have different code and yet accomplish the same thing.
|>
|>Yes, apart from highly specialised algorithms (which can be protected by Copyright) the code is quite, quite irrelevant.
|>
|>Please don't reply that Apple stole the idea from Xerox's Palo Alto Research Centre, I know the history. I'm only trying to make a point that a new paradigm is greater than the sum of all it's typed subroutines.
|>
|>Mark

James Maeding
jmaeding at hunsaker dot com
Civil Engineer/Programmer