 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Intel already has a 32 core system.
>
> It also depends what you want the "core" to do. A 32-core x86 processor?
> Awesome. A 32-core FORTH processor? Yawn.
I have a processor with 192 cores, capable of generating about 700
GFLOPS of compute power. And it's not even an expensive research
prototype. It's an off-the-shelf component. It's called a GPU. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK. But what's to say that M$ haven't patented the same thing in every
>> single duristiction that they operate in?
>
> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU doesn't
> acknowledge software patents.
Oh, right. I didn't know that.
Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or just
that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
>> DirectX is patented.
> Actually.. No. An API is an "interface". The underlying way that it goes
> from, "I gave it this data", to, "It gave me this result", is what is
> patented, not the API itself.
Really? Interesting. What underlies the API calls is obviously subject
to _copyright_ protection, but I didn't think you could _patent_
executable code. However, I thought that you *can* patent an API.
> Otherwise emulating **anything**,
> including the BIOS, which you need to do things like DOSBox, would be
> illegal too.
Only illegal if the BIOS interface is patented. (AFAIK, it isn't.) The
actual BIOS code in any given motherboard has copyright protection
[usually], but then it only works with one given motherboard anyway...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> is what is patented, not the API itself.
Really, it depends what's in the patent.
For example, if you patent aspects of the MP3 data stream format, then any
API that accepts an MP3 data stream as input or generates it as output would
not be implementable without licensing the patent.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (not to talk that Apple could probably sue
>> Microsoft for the same thing,
Um... they did?
> Indeed, Apple is the one that started applying "look-and-feel" to
> Microsoft in a lawsuit over the UI.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
Oh thank god... It's nice to know my memory isn't *completely* defective!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I haven't seen the Blue Screen of Death from ReactOS yet. Maybe they
> haven't implemented that part?
Maybe they did, but it's so buggy that it always fails.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU
>> doesn't
>> acknowledge software patents.
>
> Oh, right. I didn't know that.
>
> Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or just
> that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU
>>> doesn't
>>> acknowledge software patents.
>>
>> Oh, right. I didn't know that.
>>
>> Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or
>> just that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
>
> 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. And then sue ReactOS for implementing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:01:40 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scott com> did
spake thusly:
<snip>
> There is no way to successfully sue anyone in the EU for patent
> infringement if you're not dealing with anything physical.
However that's just patents there are also trademarks which enforce the
'style' of something and that doesn't just apply to the physical. As for
whether that or even overseas patents are enforceable you have to look out
for TRIPs. In theory TRIPs allows non-physical patents and therefore any
signatory to TRIPs has to uphold them.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
