|
 |
On 5/16/2010 1:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> If we had had patents back during the original colonies, or earlier,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent#History
>
Let me rephrase... If they had the kind of idiot patents we now see in
Software, where you can make it stupidly vague, describe a set of
instructions, rather than a physical thing, then sue everyone that even
*sort of* does the same thing...
Good example, from the video. You have two data sets. Say X1, X2, X3.
One is liking pets, second is "affectionate", third is.. I don't know,
favorite color = red. You also also have the same data from someone
else, Y1, Y2, Y3. You then so a fairly uncomplicated comparison on them.
Nope, no patent here. Now.. ***Name*** the variables, say, Zip, Zop, and
Zap. Put out a patent that says, "Comparing Zip, Zop and Zap to find
"compatibility" between individuals with those traits, and suddenly it
**is** patentable. You named them after all, which, according to the
argument that led to most of this BS, makes the process "unique", not
just basic fracking boolean math on a matrix of values.
This is how damn stupid things are right now. And, if you make it vague
enough, you get some damn silly lawsuits, and people actually *winning*,
or getting settlements, on the basis of such nonsense. You can't produce
an inexpensive alternative to product X, if simply marketing it means
you have to spent a million dollars to pay off all the people that show
up to say, "Heh! We think that falls under out patents!"
Its irrelevant that, at one time, patents actually worked. Since they
didn't allow the kinds of patents, until ****very recently****, that we
see in software.
--
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
|
 |