 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> However that's just patents there are also trademarks which enforce the
> 'style' of something and that doesn't just apply to the physical.
The USA also has what's called "design patents". For example, if you invent
a novel way of carving glass or polishing paint or something, you can patent
it as a "design patent" and keep someone else from using it. (That's all
I've seen it applied to personally, but I suspect the intention was to allow
you to patent for example a phone where the keyboard slides open in two
different directions or something, regardless of how you mechanically
realized it.)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Yep. I haven't had much problem with Windows 7 actually.
... yet.
I have decided that whenever MS comes out with a new OS, I'm going to stop
applying anything but the most vital patches to the old OS. I think my Vista
has gotten way, way flakier in the last three months than in the 18 or more
months or so before that.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 12:53 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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. ;-)
>
Ah well, yeah. lol The one they are testing though *is* an x86 type.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 7:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> scott<sco### [at] scott com> 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.
>
The problem here is that it all depends on the "breadth" of the
language. Someone a while back got sued, and lost, over a patent that
covered imprinting music data onto media, via a kiosk. The patent they
used to sue... was originally based on punching holes in paper scrolls,
to be fed into player pianos. The people successfully sued over it -
"Buy the music you want, per song, and have our kiosk burn those chosen
songs to a CD for you."
That is the problem in a nutshell. Patents, under the current bunch of
a) judges, b) patent lawyers, and c) system by which they are, if ever,
looked at before issuing pendings on them, allow you to make the details
so vague that it covers like 99% of every possible way to do something,
not just the "specific" device, and the "specific" usage, originally
applied for. So, of course, now, they **intentionally** make the
language that vague, knowing they can get by with doing it, instead of
being specific.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 12:57 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> 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...
>
Well, if I am wrong about that, and I may be. It still doesn't make
sense. Part of the patent law **explicitely* allows "interoperability".
You can't have it both ways and a) prevent someone duplicating the API,
and also b) allow people to design something that can inter-operate with
the software/hardware that uses the API.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 12:59 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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.
>
True enough. But, as I said in the other post to Orchid. I don't see how
you allow "interoperability", then tell people, "Oh, but sorry, you are
not allowed to duplicate how it works, so you can make it inter-operate."
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 6:39 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 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.
>
If you had all the patched dlls, it was. The problem was, you had no way
to "prevent" old ones from being installed, if you installed an older
application than the one you last did, which broke things **badly**, and
no way to tell it was going to, or tell it to not do it. But, if you got
the latest patches, you where generally OK. You just didn't want to
*dare* install anything older after. ;)
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.
> That's the same rules we have here in the USA.
Clearly it isn't. Something like patenting LZW would never happen here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> That's the same rules we have here in the USA.
> Clearly it isn't. Something like patenting LZW would never happen here.
Unfortunately, our courts have been acting for a long time as if a computer
with a specific program on it *is* a new device. It's only recently that
they decided that the device has to be "special purpose", and now that's
going to go thru all the courts again.
In other words, it's the same titular rules (at least in terms of software
patents), but the lawyers have managed to argue that they mean something
different. That's why our patents all have wordings like "A method of
turning X into Y by applying this computerized algorithm."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that it's best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
