 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 9:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> You *can* do stuff with it, but it's very unreliable.
>>
>> Sounds like perfect Windows emulation to me!
>
> Heheh. What, you mean like this?
>
> http://www.slimeland.com/winsim/
>
> I would say, Win 3.x was quite reliable (then again, it doesn't *do*
Windows 3.x was stable? LMAO ... back then I only used windows when I
absolutely had to. Very crash prone.
> anything), Win 9x was fairly unstable, Win NT was much better, Win XP
9x was better than 3.x, NT was definitely much more stable.
> was initially hopeless, and now Win XP has got to the point where it
> usually works just fine. Certinaly it doesn't crash just because you
Yep. I haven't had much problem with Windows 7 actually. Occasionally
there's some 64 bit awkwardness (64bit apps being able to allocate way
more memory that physically available causes trouble), but well, I chose
to install 64 bit.
> open Notepad; ReactOS does. Like, in ReactOS, you can just open an
> Explorer window, click on a few things, and then you notice that the
> mouse has stopped moving and the system is using 100% CPU, and the
> keyboard isn't responding, and...
>
> I haven't seen the Blue Screen of Death from ReactOS yet. Maybe they
> haven't implemented that part?
Nah, it just goes into in infinite loop before it ever gets there
(apparently, based on your description)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> *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.
AFAIK even then it applies only to the device in question.
For example, a company could patent, let's say, a scanning device which
scans a barcode and tells what numeric code it corresponds to. The algorithm
which recognizes the barcode from the rest of the image and interprets its
meaning can be part of the device patent.
However, someone could implement the exact same algorithm on a PC so that
it would recognize barcodes from JPEG images and then distribute that program,
and it would be fine because it's not anymore related to the scanning device.
This person is not building the scanning *device* and distributing it, only
a program.
--
- Warp
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.
That's the same rules we have here in the USA.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
