 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
People don't patent software.
Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable
by a computing system to ....
You really need to understand that the details matter.
> No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases
> has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the
> "definition" of patent,
Yeah. The entire legal system involved with patents has no idea what they're
doing and can't even read the statutes or the patents themselves.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If patents on prior art can be granted if the patent does some tiny
> detail differently and originally, wouldn't that mean that, conversely,
> you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
> being different from the patent description?
There's two bits.
If I patent (say) black and white TV, you can patent how to send color over
the airwaves in a way that a B&W TV will get the right picture too.
However, I can't manufacture my color TVs without licensing the B&W patents,
and you can't sell a color TV doing it my way without paying both licenses.
In other words, I can patent a device that does A&B&C. You patent a device
that does A&B&C&D. Anyone that does A&B&C infringes my patent, and if it
also does D it *also* infringes your patent. But the patent on A&B&C&D is
still a valid patent. Someone doing A&B&C&E does not infringe your patent
but it infringes mine. Someone that does A&B&X doesn't infringe either patent.
> The latter would make patents basically useless, but that means that
> patents should not be granted on prior art simply because the patent has
> a minor difference compared to all existing usage.
The argument in the above case would be whether my patent already covers "D"
in your patent. Just because I have a patent doesn't permit me to
manufacture devices covered by that patent. I have to license all the other
patents that also cover the device.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if the SCOTUS shot them all down?
While this is true, there is a handful of "software patents" that seem to be
a good idea. public key encryption leaps to mind, altho I suppose you could
argue that would have come out in public anyway.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
> being different from the patent description?
To answer this precisely, yes, that's correct. You look at each claim, each
of which is a single sentence. Each sentence is broken up by semicolons.
Each clause has to be done by your machine in order for it to be violating
the claim.
So if I have a claim that says
Claim 1: A machine that manufactures eyebolts; said machine powered by
compressed air; with a two-prong mechanism that curls steel; and a die that
cuts threads.
then you don't violate if you don't make eyebolts, you're not powered by
compressed air, you don't have two prongs on the mechanism or it doesn't
curl steel, or if you don't have a die that cuts threads.
If your mechanism has three prongs, then you're not violating my patent.
That's why people griping about "sudo did that a decade ago" or "they're
patenting peanut butter jelly sandwiches" make themselves sound foolish to
anyone who actually knows how the system works. IANAL.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions, which, in
>> principle, a human could not reproduce themselves, if they had some
>> means to access the same data, and some means to produce the same
>> results on a computer screen. Can't? Well, then, software patents are
>> not legal at all, since you can't patent such "instruction sets", as
>> defined by the laws set up to define what you *can* patent. The
>> problem is, no one mentions this niggling little detail, or makes sure
>> the people in the court, like the judge, knows that software "is" such
>> a thing. One side argues its not, but never manages to say why, the
>> other side argues it is, and babbles about unique, protecting IP,
>> etc., and the courts go by what they know, which is, "Someone wrote
>> the thing, and its all incomprehensible to me, so sounds like a
>> machine, not instructions."
>
> Isn't *everything* reducible to a "set of instructions"?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Uh.. Please describe to me the "instructions" for *being* a shovel.
Making one, sure, but that isn't a "patent", only the final product is.
The act of using the shovel could be, but again, you can't use something
without having it first. In any case, I am not stating some vague
opinion on the matter. The actual, specific, legal definitions of
patents exclude "sets of instructions that a person can follow for get a
specific result". You can't patent mathematical formula, for example,
and the reason you can't is because they fall under that specific rule.
You can't patent the *process* used to build something, you can
trademark it, copyright it, if in written form, but only the *product*
of those steps is patentable, *not* the process used to get to it.
Software is, at a basic level, all math, and on a more general level,
its like the instruction manual used to tell you how to "build" a
cabinet, not the cabinet itself. The former is not patentable, the later is.
--
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:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
>
> People don't patent software.
>
> Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions
> executable by a computing system to ....
>
> You really need to understand that the details matter.
>
Snort. Give me a break. There is a difference between something that
tells someone/something how to do something, and something that "does
it", by design. Details don't matter, if its the former. Why? Because
you are not patenting a specific implementation, you are patenting
"formula", which isn't allowed. You can trademark it, copyright it,
etc., but technically, since it can, in principle, be "run" by a human,
silly BS like adding, "When loaded into X machine, with Y device.",
doesn't change the nature of the situation. Its like trying to claim
that you are taking about a unique "machine", if an accountant, wearing
a paisley tie, while standing on one foot, is the person you intend to
program your VCR, therefor someone else's Aunt is in violation of patent
if "she" tries to follow the same set of instructions.
Fine, you want to patent some combination of watsits, leave out the
software, which is "instructions", and see what the people holding the
patents on the "hardware" say about your patenting the "combination" of
their products. Stuffing code on it doesn't make it "new", or make the
code something other than code.
>> No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases
>> has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the
>> "definition" of patent,
>
> Yeah. The entire legal system involved with patents has no idea what
> they're doing and can't even read the statutes or the patents themselves.
>
How many cases have actually made the argument for why software isn't a
*unique machine*, or causes something to *become one*, based on an
explanation of them as "instructions"? The point made by the article I
linked to is, "Not many, if any." And, if it was so *certain*, why would
anyone be reviewing their validity?
In any case, I don't personally find the, "I wrote a set of instructions
on how to do X, so now X is a new thing.", argument even remotely
persuasive myself, and all the fancy, "Well, I am not patenting X, I am
patenting Y, Z, Q and P, which are all patented by someone else, when
used with X.", language I find even more silly. Either software is a
thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we have a serious problem.
If its the former, then you don't need all the fancy loopholes and
absurd arguments about all the widgets you attached to it, to argue that
it isn't. The only reason to have to be that obtuse is if the central
premise is invalid to start with, and you damn well know it.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> This having a large bucket of your own
> patents provides sort of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario where
> one company can't attempt to sue another for patent infringement without
> suffering a massive counter-suit.
But that's MAD!
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
>>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
>>
>> People don't patent software.
>>
>> Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions
>> executable by a computing system to ....
>>
>> You really need to understand that the details matter.
>>
> Snort. Give me a break.
It's not me. I'm not the one saying it's a meaningful distinction.
Are you arguing what should be, or what is?
> Details don't matter, if its the former. Why? Because
> you are not patenting a specific implementation, you are patenting
> "formula", which isn't allowed.
Yes. You're patenting a specific implementation of preparing those
spark-lines, in particular, one which is run from a computer-readable medium.
> You can trademark it, copyright it,
> etc., but technically, since it can, in principle, be "run" by a human,
> silly BS like adding, "When loaded into X machine, with Y device.",
> doesn't change the nature of the situation.
I beg to differ. Unless, if course, you're arguing how it should be, rather
than how it is, in which case there isn't a lot of point in discussing things.
> How many cases have actually made the argument for why software isn't a
> *unique machine*, or causes something to *become one*, based on an
> explanation of them as "instructions"? The point made by the article I
> linked to is, "Not many, if any." And, if it was so *certain*, why would
> anyone be reviewing their validity?
Because the rules on what you can patent are being changed.
> In any case, I don't personally find the, "I wrote a set of instructions
> on how to do X, so now X is a new thing.", argument even remotely
> persuasive myself,
Since you're not a patent judge, that doesn't really matter much.
> Either software is a
> thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we have a serious problem.
I'm saying that people don't patent software. They patent hardware that's
running that software. You may argue that it doesn't make any difference,
but that factually isn't the case, or nobody would be trying to change that
via the courts right now.
> The only reason to have to be that obtuse is if the central
> premise is invalid to start with, and you damn well know it.
Again, are you arguing "is" or are you arguing "should be"? Because right
now the Supreme Court is trying to decide what "is", so if you're arguing
"is", I'd have to say you're full of it, as the Supreme Court doesn't even
know the answer. If you're arguing "should be", then I'll ignore you since
your opinion isn't relevant to the discussion of what actually is. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent naglams, but unable?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent naglams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
