|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 6/25/2010 1:01 AM, scott wrote:
>>> If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
>>> application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the
>>> money trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to
>>> do this.
>>>
>>> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be
>>> made, then the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a
>>> novel image processing algorithm for improving display quality on a
>>> display is fine, or a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
>>>
>>> As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle,
>>> so probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in
>>> court.
>>
>> Right. So as long as M$ describes the DirectX API as "a system for
>> allowing cool programs to run on our OS and nobody else's", they can
>> patent it.
>
> Not in the EU they can't, because it does not apply to some physical
> object that can only be made utilising this patent. At a stretch they
> might be able to get away with some GUI concept applied to a mobile
> device they were manufacturing, but it's going to have to be quite a
> high level concept (eg a novel way to select images from a database
> using a touch screen) rather than an API.
>
>> And then sue ReactOS for implementing it.
>
> There is no way to successfully sue anyone in the EU for patent
> infringement if you're not dealing with anything physical.
>
That would be "yet". Sadly, the US companies keep pushing for adoption
of our stupid ideas on the subject. They figure, "Why rule the US and
bankrupt/undermine anyone with new (or just improved) ideas, when you
can rule the world, and do the same to everyone else."
--
void main () {
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) |