Patrick Elliott wrote:
> argued by the Groklaw site too. 

I disagree that most of what the groklaw article talks about is relevant. 
When they're arguing about abstract computer theory, they're intentionally 
ignoring the fact that (for example) isomorphic changes can actually be 
novel and inventive.

For example, you could argue that patenting the layout of a particular 
typewriter keyboard should be allowed, especially if it gives a significant 
improvement over previous keyboard layouts, right?

If you're going to insist that it's impossible even theoretically to improve 
a device in a novel way by modifying the software it is running, then we'll 
have to disagree.

Which is not to say that I think software should be patentable. Just that 
excluding it merely because it is software doesn't make sense to me.

> And, seriously, how many of the companies involved wouldn't have wanted 
> patents? 

About half. The half that lost the patent case in court, in particular. And 
that's why we have precedents. You can't argue that this case applies to him 
and an identical case doesn't apply to you.

But sure, in general? Go for it. That's what the legislature and judges 
decide, and that's what's before the courts now.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:53:52 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> I disagree that most of what the groklaw article talks about is
> relevant.

Heh, it's funny you say that, because I stopped trying to participate 
there long ago after being accused of "astroturfing" because I didn't 
agree with "the gospel according to PJ".  Dissent with PJ isn't really 
appreciated there, even if you do have a valid point, I've found.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> appreciated there, even if you do have a valid point, I've found.

Well, the article is clear and well-written, and talks extensively about 
theoretical computer science and turing machines and all that stuff. It's 
just irrelevant to patents, because the thing that makes software an 
improvement is its output, and theoretical computer science doesn't talk 
about I/O.  Theoretical computer science doesn't care about the speed of 
your computer or whether the keys on the keyboard are labeled right or 
whether the red and green guns in the CRT are wired in reverse. It's hard to 
imagine a patent of *any* type on a machine or subject or process that has 
absolutely no interaction with or affect of any type upon humans once it is 
set in motion, and that's what 99% of theoretical computer science is about.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:18:53 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Well, the article is clear and well-written, and talks extensively about
> theoretical computer science and turing machines and all that stuff.

Oh, yes, the articles up there do tend to be clear and well-written - no 
doubt about that.  It's just that dissent with any of PJ's opinions seems 
to be very poorly tolerated.

She made a claim once that NetWare was derived from Unix; I saw someone 
attempt to correct that, and it wasn't well received - and the person 
attempting to correct that was in fact correct; the guys at SuperSet (the 
group that coded the original NetWare kernel) may have had a Unix 
background from their CS studies at BYU, but NetWare bears as much 
resemblance (both externally and internally) to Unix as the OS on a 
Commodore VIC-20 does.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> And, seriously, how many of the companies involved wouldn't have 
>> wanted patents? 
> 
> About half. The half that lost the patent case in court, in particular. 
> And that's why we have precedents. You can't argue that this case 
> applies to him and an identical case doesn't apply to you.
> 
> But sure, in general? Go for it. That's what the legislature and judges 
> decide, and that's what's before the courts now.
> 
I would disagree with this assessment, for the very reason you state, 
but flipped. No company wants to discredit a patent system that would 
allow them to say, "But the same rule applies to so and so's case, so it 
should apply to mine." Anyone arguing to invalidate software patent is 
cutting their own throat, ***if*** they think they have any sort of 
software to which they might want to apply a patent.

-- 
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

Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> appreciated there, even if you do have a valid point, I've found.
> 
> Well, the article is clear and well-written, and talks extensively about 
> theoretical computer science and turing machines and all that stuff. 
> It's just irrelevant to patents, because the thing that makes software 
> an improvement is its output, and theoretical computer science doesn't 
> talk about I/O.  Theoretical computer science doesn't care about the 
> speed of your computer or whether the keys on the keyboard are labeled 
> right or whether the red and green guns in the CRT are wired in reverse. 
> It's hard to imagine a patent of *any* type on a machine or subject or 
> process that has absolutely no interaction with or affect of any type 
> upon humans once it is set in motion, and that's what 99% of theoretical 
> computer science is about.
> 
But not exactly what the article is talking about.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Anyone arguing to invalidate software patent is 
> cutting their own throat, ***if*** they think they have any sort of 
> software to which they might want to apply a patent.

I don't think you understand how it works. Have you actually participated in 
a patent dispute where such a concern is brought up?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
     with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
   I want that for a ring tone.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Anyone arguing to invalidate software patent is cutting their own 
>> throat, ***if*** they think they have any sort of software to which 
>> they might want to apply a patent.
> 
> I don't think you understand how it works. Have you actually 
> participated in a patent dispute where such a concern is brought up?
> 
You just got through saying that precedent applies to identical or 
nearly identical situations. So your question.. doesn't make sense in 
context of what I am saying. Take the whole "one click buying" thing, 
for example. There is almost certainly some "similar" things that other 
companies would love to patent. Arguing that the patent shouldn't exist 
at all, instead of merely how obvious it seems, would set a precedent to 
deny similar patents entirely.

In other words, what I am saying is, attacking the validity of software 
patent is a meta issue that effects "all" of them, not just the specific 
cases. It has to, by definition. So that is never the method used to 
attack them, but any arguments are centered on "specifics", since that 
allows you to attack the specific patent in question, without 
invalidating multiple patents in the process, by invalidated the *meta* 
issue of if they should be such patents. Or, are you honestly trying to 
claim that when company X goes into court their first, or even last, 
argument is, "Well, such patents shouldn't happen anyway, because..."? 
That is what I mean by cutting their own throat. You don't make an 
argument that invalidates your own future cases, just to win one where 
someone else is suing you over supposed infringement.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You just got through saying that precedent applies to identical or 
> nearly identical situations. So your question.. doesn't make sense in 
> context of what I am saying.

You only think it doesn't.  I will assume that since you avoided answering 
the question, the answer is "no".

> at all, instead of merely how obvious it seems, would set a precedent to 
> deny similar patents entirely.

But the lawyer defending the suit doesn't care.


> In other words, what I am saying is, attacking the validity of software 
> patent is a meta issue that effects "all" of them, not just the specific 
> cases.

And you're missing my point again. The lawyer doesn't care, nor does the judge.

> You don't make an 
> argument that invalidates your own future cases, just to win one where 
> someone else is suing you over supposed infringement.

Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Or are you just guessing 
that's how it works?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
   much longer being almost empty than almost full.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> You just got through saying that precedent applies to identical or 
>> nearly identical situations. So your question.. doesn't make sense in 
>> context of what I am saying.
> 
> You only think it doesn't.  I will assume that since you avoided 
> answering the question, the answer is "no".

I am trying to proceed on logic here, you are arguing that, "Well, no, 
it doesn't, for a lot of reasons, the biggest one being that it just 
*doesn't*." You presume that I care "how" it works, and not whether or 
not it makes any damn sense for it *too* work that way, as I already 
said. Its not about *if* the system has been doing this stuff, its 
whether or not they should have been in the first place, and if that has 
resulting in the net *opposite* of what was intended, which one can 
argue, in many cases it appears likely.

>> In other words, what I am saying is, attacking the validity of 
>> software patent is a meta issue that effects "all" of them, not just 
>> the specific cases.
> 
> And you're missing my point again. The lawyer doesn't care, nor does the 
> judge.
> 
Uh, judge yes, but somehow I don't think the lawyer, who usually works 
for the company, is going to be that unbiased. Seriously..

-- 
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