1 comments

  • Thursday, Oct 07 2021

    This one hinges on distilling the meaning of 2 separate concepts:

    2nd paragraph middle+end - to patent an algorithm it has to represent the design of a process that is specific - not a general law of nature i.e. it is a specific iteration of a broad principle, not the rule itself.

    3rd paragraph middle - copyright applies only in regard to a specific expression of principles i.e. again a specific iteration, no the rule itself

    So:

    patent - cannot be a broad, generic principle

    copyright - has to be a specific iteration of a principle

    Scientific principles are by nature broad and generic, so they would be too broad to patent or copyright.

    More detail paraphrase of the text:

    End of 2nd paragraph - algorithms representing generic principles don't qualify for patent protection. Encoding of an algorithm is like designing a process, so it can be patented, unless it represents a law of nature or a logical axiom i.e. it has to be unique and narrow and not the broad, general rule.

    middle of 3rd paragraph - "copyright protects only the particular way in which the underlying ideas (principles/algorithms) are expressed" + earlier programs are specific expressions of ideas (algorithms), so copyright applies better - so only the specific application of the broad principle.

    0

Confirm action

Are you sure?