|
|
|
|
|
by amiga386
648 days ago
|
|
You can't hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse (that you're implying is the character Mickey Mouse) You can hold a design patent for the look of a tangible object - e.g. the rounded corners of an iPhone. You can also hold a design patent for particularly novel typefaces (fonts), the layout of a screen (e.g. like Norton Commander's twin directory listings on the left and right) and for computer icons, but that only covers them when they're displayed on screen. So you could get a patent for the stylised depiction of a mouse as an icon, but only in that context. If you wanted to flex ownership of a fictional character design, you get that by copyright, not patent. And the copyright law on derivative works is what protects that fiction character design from being copied or evolved by others. But it can't stop them parodying your design in order to ridicule it (specifically), so you don't have absolute control over it. This is why I don't like the use of the term "IP" or "intellecual property", as it completely muddies the waters as to what your actual rights are, and what limitations of "ownership" there are. |
|
But the same principle holds for patents. E.g. patenting an algorithm. It doesn't matter what language the algorithm is implemented in, whether you are running it on a binary computer or on some kind of a Chinese room set up, etc etc.
Think about how different two turing machines can be which implement the same algorithm. They don't even have to use the same symbols or states. They could print their outputs in English, French or any other natural language. The only thing that all Turing machines which implement the same algorithm have in common is a "vibe". Same kind of general vibe which the original commenter was talking about.