|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Making one, sure, but that isn't a "patent", only the final product is.
>
> I don't believe that's true. Certainly you can patent a new process to
> build the same thing cheaper.
>
> Do you have a credible citation for this?
>
Hmm. Ok. Processes are included, it seems, but that doesn't alter the
fact that some very precise exclusions where added when defining what is
patentable, and software is a bloody close fit to that. The argument is
that software is a description of abstractions in a lot of cases. I.e.,
the math the guy used on paper to describe the means to map something to
a 3D point in space is "not" fundamentally different than the code used
to do the same thing. So, you can't patent the process of calculating
such a point, though you might the specific "way" you do it. Problem
with a lot of patents has been that they cross that line by a wide
fracking margin, attempting to patent, as in one person's example, the
process of making bolts, not the *specific* bolt in question.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |