What is pseudocode worth, legal rights.

[gafferuk]

I have code, it has value, want to make money.

With all the desktops/laptops/phones/TV/Tablets/Music Players/Video/Cinema/Music events in the world it's defiantly worth £1 per device.

That's billions of pounds.

So I need every bit of advice.

If I'm not protected, ill never give it out, just in case.

Thanks.

[LemonLime]

Pseudocode? Are you serious? Nothing.
You can't copyright or monetize an idea. It has to be something concrete and functional.

[FabienTDR]

Is this a joke?



*Popcorn's ready!*

[nerdpatrol]

I have code, it has value, want to make money.

Do you have actual code or pseudocode? If you have actual code then make sure it actually works and get rid of the bugs and push your product to market. As others already mentioned you can't really license out ideas under copyright and at best you might be able to get something protected under patent but unless it is something truly novel then you are most likely completely out of luck. I have plenty of code too, it also has value which is why I have turned this code into functional applications that people purchase (and also pirate...but such is life).

It's good that you're dreaming big but maybe you should take a step back and really assess the situation first before doing such bold things as valuing the worth of your product that doesn't exist yet at over a billion pounds. I think it'd be best not to worry, to keep a more humble attitude and to just continue with development until you have a working build of the code that actually does whatever it is you want to protect under copyright.

[earlevel]

With all the desktops/laptops/phones/TV/Tablets/Music Players/Video/Cinema/Music events in the world it's defiantly worth £1 per device.

Apple wanted $1 per device to license Firewire. This was before USB, and USB (1) didn't have near the performance if Firewire. But $1 was too expensive, and the industry developed USB 2 to sort of catch up with Firewire 800, then USB 3 to pass it.

Don't underestimate the cost of $1—or £1—to an electronic device.

[whyterabbyt]

With all the desktops/laptops/phones/TV/Tablets/Music Players/Video/Cinema/Music events in the world it's defiantly worth £1 per device.

Apple wanted $1 per device to license Firewire.

Nope. Not Apple, not $1.

FireWire is Apple's name for the IEEE 1394 High Speed Serial Bus. It was initiated by Apple (in 1986[4]) and developed by the IEEE P1394 Working Group, largely driven by contributions from Apple, although major contributions were also made by engineers from Texas Instruments, Sony, Digital Equipment Corporation, IBM, and INMOS/SGS Thomson (now STMicroelectronics).

IEEE 1394 compliance or implementation is considered infringement of 261 active issued international patents[12] held by 10 corporations. To facilitate licensure to designers, a patent pool was formed by those holders to sublicense their patents to a license administrator, MPEG LA, LLC, who sublicenses them in turn to designers. Under the license offered by MPEG LA, a royalty of US$0.25 per unit is payable upon the manufacture of each 1394 finished product

anyway; OP post history indicates failed sanity check. avoid eye contact, wash hands after use.

[earlevel]

Apple wanted $1 per device to license Firewire.

Nope. Not Apple, not $1.

Yep, Apple, yep $1, they later caved. Which is my point exactly—no one wanted to pay $1.

Google it—apple firewire $1. The stuff you posted is true, but so was what I posted. The fact that the final implementation involved patents of other companies is immaterial—Apple initially wanted $1, and firewire didn't exist without them. It was their invention.

[Plasuma!!!]

The fact that the final implementation involved patents of other companies is immaterial—Apple initially wanted $1, and firewire didn't exist without them. It was their invention.

Only in name. Firewire could have easily existed without Apple's meager 7%, and branding + overpricing it is exactly why superior competition later came to exist by way of IBM.

Outside of simple greed, I'll never understand why everyone rushes to patent and charge for the most trivial of things (Apple's TrueType, anyone?). There are still groups of people blatantly patenting grade school algebra for crying out loud.

[earlevel]

It was their invention.

Only in name.

??? They invented firewire, not just the name. It was developed further with the use of other IP, of course. Maybe you're getting confused with Sony's naming, "i.LINK". And I don't understand your comment, "Apple's meager 7%". They invented it, and drove the IEEE P1394 Working Group.

Anyway, this is getting way off track. Was my point not clear? The op thought charging £1 was no big deal, and I pointed out the brush-back Apple got for trying to charge $1 licensing for a device that was superior, at the time, to anything else. The point, if it's still not clear: $1 is a lot of money to add to manufacturing costs, even for products that sell for hundreds.

[JonHodgson]

From the UK Intellectual Property Office

Software

Software, that is computer programs, and games for games consoles are protected on the same basis as literary works. Conversion of a program into or between computer languages and codes corresponds to adapting a work. Storing any work in a computer amounts to copying the work. In addition, running a computer program or displaying work on a video display unit (VDU) will usually involve copying and thus require the consent of the copyright owner.

I suspect that pseudo code would be covered, certainly I think a lawyer could make a very good case for it, since copyright of software is an extention of that for a literary work, pseudocode is certainly literary.

However copyright only covers the code, or adapted works, it does not cover the IDEA, which is what the OP really wants.

For that they need a patent, and when it comes to software you're in dodgy territory there, which is why companies tend to patent "inventions" which use the ideas they want to protect.

That's of course if the OP has anything new and worth protecting, which I somehow doubt, their sig might be a clue as to what this amazing new development is supposed to be.

[JonHodgson]

Incidentally..

DreamAudio(c)

The (c) is completely pointless, you cannot copyright a name, title, slogan or phrase.

You could try registering it as a trademark if you wanted to protect it, and then you could write

DreamAudio (tm)

[JonHodgson]

Wow, I just read some of the OPs posts in other threads...

I feel like I've stepped through the looking glass

[Plasuma!!!]

It was their invention.

Only in name.

??? They invented firewire, not just the name. It was developed further with the use of other IP, of course. Maybe you're getting confused with Sony's naming, "i.LINK". And I don't understand your comment, "Apple's meager 7%". They invented it, and drove the IEEE P1394 Working Group.

They also invented the iPad, but they didn't invent the tablet.

Like I said, only in name. Apple is well-known for taking free ideas, patenting them, and developing them into closed-development failures, much like they did with FreeBSD to make OSX.

Check financial reports and see how much they put into RnD. 7% isn't far off, and the trend hasn't changed since they first started.

[earlevel]

Like I said, only in name. Apple is well-known for taking free ideas, patenting them, and developing them into closed-development failures, much like they did with FreeBSD to make OSX.

Uh, sure...let us know who they stole FireWire from...

Anyway, the point was the licensing fee, so this is way off track, and FreeBSD...this seems to be turning into an Apple rant.

Edit: Eh, "rant" seems a little cranky, sorry, not meaning to sound that way ("flame" any better? "tangent"?). My original post was, "Apple wanted $1 per device to license Firewire [and people wouldn't pay it]". OK, I believe FireWire is as legit of an invention by Apple as most technology inventions are for any tech company, but even if it isn't, would my reply have been improved by saying something like, "Apple wanted $1 per device to license Firewire—they didn't deserve it one bit, even though they held the patent and had the right to claim it because they stole the idea anyway and everyone else did all the hard work [and people wouldn't pay it]"? I don't think so.