From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Mon Feb 27 21:35:00 2006
From: "Ross Walker ross++rosswalker.co.uk" <owner-chemistry-*-server.ccl.net>
To: CCL
Subject: CCL: software pattents in chemistry?
Message-Id: <-31027-060227212715-15387-MlhDo5MgI87aOVuibu+VxA-*-server.ccl.net>
X-Original-From: "Ross Walker" <ross[*]rosswalker.co.uk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:27:02 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0


Sent to CCL by: "Ross Walker" [ross]_[rosswalker.co.uk]

> For what it's worth, the same figure appears to be included in their 
> publication of similar name, and is entirely legible in that format:
> 
>   J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003 Nov-Dec;43(6):1982-97.
> 
> It appears they filed provisional patents, and then proceeded 
> to publish 
> the same material.

And this is part of the problem with software patents I feel. If you are
going to patent an algorithm you can't then expect to publish work that uses
that algorithm in peer reviewed journals. The problem being that if you
patent the algorithm you use other researchers can't use that algorithm to
reproduce and verify your work and therefore such work does not belong in a
peer reviewed journal.

Copyrighted code is a very different situation, however, since even if you
use a commercial implementation of an algorithm to do the research other
scientists can simply implement the algorithm described in your paper to
reproduce the results. If the algorithm itself is patented then nobody can
verify your results without paying you royalties.

Thus perhaps the discussion should be whether publication of an algorithm,
by the authors of a patent, in scientific journals then invalidates the
scope of that patent.

Just my 2c.

All the best
Ross

/\
\/
|\oss Walker

| Department of Molecular Biology TPC15 |
| The Scripps Research Institute |
| Tel: +1 858 784 8889 | EMail:- ross-.-rosswalker.co.uk |
| http://www.rosswalker.co.uk | PGP Key available on request |

Note: Electronic Mail is not secure, has no guarantee of delivery, may not
be read every day, and should not be used for urgent or sensitive issues.