Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Some of this stuff just gets bloody stupid.

There's a lot of stupidity in the patent process, but it isn't anything I've 
ever seen talked about *here*.  People just don't understand the patent 
process, and think that legal terms like "obvious" have some relationship to 
what they mean in English, or that you can look at a patent filing and tell 
exactly what's covered by it without looking at the prosecution of the patent.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
     Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
       Then he is not omnipotent.
     Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
       Then he is malevolent.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:33:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Some of this stuff just gets bloody stupid.

That's true about just about everything. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:09:12 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> the hacker can concentrate on that account.
> 
> User-friendly is always in counterpoint to secure. No way around it.

I might argue that, but not today. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 20:05:30 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> But yeah, if you're too broke to hire a lawyer, chances are good
>>> you're too broke to be worth suing, too
>> 
>> That hasn't stopped RIAA....
> 
> Different motivation.

True enough - which kinda makes my point, though; lawsuits have different 
motivations, and money isn't always the primary (or only) motivation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Some of this stuff just gets bloody stupid.
> 
> There's a lot of stupidity in the patent process, but it isn't anything 
> I've ever seen talked about *here*.  People just don't understand the 
> patent process, and think that legal terms like "obvious" have some 
> relationship to what they mean in English, or that you can look at a 
> patent filing and tell exactly what's covered by it without looking at 
> the prosecution of the patent.
> 
Hmm. Problem here is that obvious isn't a "precise" term either. Anyone 
trying to the solve the same problem *and* with the expertise to do it, 
has a high chance of seeing the same "obvious* solution, unless they are 
just so caught up in existing failed ones that they don't think of it. 
For someone with no expertise, who doesn't have the problem... it might 
as well be Chinese, translated from Greek, and originally written in 
Klingon. The relevant experts need to be questioned, not some guy behind 
a desk with a search engine, which isn't *designed* to make such 
assessments, just look for keywords.

Read something on Groklaw a few days ago, with respect to precisely this 
sort of "software patent" issue. The point made in the article is that, 
in principle, everything a computer does is "math", or something 
equivalent, software is merely a description of the process to get a 
result, and that **in theory** any human being, with enough time, 
pencils and paper, could "follow" those instructions, to produce the 
same result. Such "lists of instructions" are ***not*** patentable under 
law. Yet, because a computer follows them real damn fast, companies are 
allowed to both copyright the instruction **and** patent them. I sort of 
had the sense that it didn't make any damn sense for a while, but I 
never had someone adequately describe *why* I found the idea absurd before.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

Though, I have to admit, reading that was a lot more boring than reading 
why it is that SCO is screwed, even if they *do* somehow manage to 
convince someone to believe that they owned Linux:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091116121914292

That one gave me a good laugh. Though, the amount of time and money 
wasted on this BS with them... Sigh...

-- 
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:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Some of this stuff just gets bloody stupid.
>>
>> There's a lot of stupidity in the patent process, but it isn't 
>> anything I've ever seen talked about *here*.  People just don't 
>> understand the patent process, and think that legal terms like 
>> "obvious" have some relationship to what they mean in English, or that 
>> you can look at a patent filing and tell exactly what's covered by it 
>> without looking at the prosecution of the patent.
>>
> Hmm. Problem here is that obvious isn't a "precise" term either.

It is in the legal way it's used. That's my point. "Obvious" doesn't mean "I 
could have done that."  It means something like "each clause of the claim is 
detailed in the claim of another patent in the same or related field."

So if you want to patent an ergonomic desk for touch-screen use (one I had 
to look at), it may be obvious how to do that to a person, but it's not 
"obvious" unless someone patented a touch screen and someone else patented 
an ergonomic desk.

> has a high chance of seeing the same "obvious* solution, 

Irrelevant. You're making my point for me. You think "obvious" in 
patent-lawyer-speak means what "obvious" means in English. It doesn't.

> The relevant experts need to be questioned, not some guy behind 
> a desk with a search engine, which isn't *designed* to make such 
> assessments, just look for keywords.

As far as I understand it, whether it would be the first solution thought of 
by an expert trying to solve that particular problem has nothing to do with 
"obvious".

> Yet, because a computer follows them real damn fast, 

Also incorrect. It's because a computer is hardware. You don't patent the 
instructions. You patent a computing device that follows the instructions.

-- 
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:
>> Yet, because a computer follows them real damn fast, 
> 
> Also incorrect. It's because a computer is hardware. You don't patent 
> the instructions. You patent a computing device that follows the 
> instructions.
> 
And, the point here is, the argument made, sadly effectively by some, is 
that loading software onto a machine makes it a new machine. It doesn't. 
Not any more than handing a person a list of instructions makes the 
person a new person, or the combination of that person and the 
instructions a new person/machine. The argument is invalid by the 
definitions given for what is patentable in the first place. Its only 
*been* allowed because neither side in the extant cases have bothered to 
point out *why* its invalid. Loading them into a machine doesn't make 
the instructions a "new" machine *period*. The very idea of absurd.

-- 
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:
> And, the point here is, the argument made, sadly effectively by some, is 
> that loading software onto a machine makes it a new machine. It doesn't. 

I don't think people make that argument. If they did, they wouldn't be 
worried about the Beloski case, or whatever it's called. Right now, you 
don't have to patent only "a new machine". You patent any machine running 
that software.

> Loading them into a machine doesn't make 
> the instructions a "new" machine *period*. The very idea of absurd.

Can you show me anywhere that someone claimed that loading instructions into 
a machine makes it a new machine?

-- 
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:
>> And, the point here is, the argument made, sadly effectively by some, 
>> is that loading software onto a machine makes it a new machine. It 
>> doesn't. 
> 
> I don't think people make that argument. If they did, they wouldn't be 
> worried about the Beloski case, or whatever it's called. Right now, you 
> don't have to patent only "a new machine". You patent any machine 
> running that software.
> 
>> Loading them into a machine doesn't make the instructions a "new" 
>> machine *period*. The very idea of absurd.
> 
> Can you show me anywhere that someone claimed that loading instructions 
> into a machine makes it a new machine?
> 
Benhart case:

"There is one further rationale used by both the board and the examiner, 
namely, that the provision of new signals to be stored by the computer 
does not make it a new machine, i. e. it is structurally the same, no 
matter how new, useful and unobvious the result. This rationale really 
goes more to novelty than to statutory subject matter but it appears to 
be at the heart of the present controversy. To this question we say that 
if a machine is programmed in a certain new and unobvious way, it is 
physically different from the machine without that program; its memory 
elements are differently arranged. The fact that these physical changes 
are invisible to the eye should not tempt us to conclude that the 
machine has not been changed. If a new machine has not been invented, 
certainly a "new and useful improvement" of the unprogrammed machine has 
been, and *Congress has said in 35 U.S.C. § 101 that such improvements 
are statutory subject matter for a patent.* It may well be that the vast 
majority of newly programmed machines are obvious to those skilled in 
the art and hence unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We are concluding 
here that such machines are statutory under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that 
claims defining them must be judged for patentability in light of the 
prior art."

You get that. Congress accepted the definition, and concluded that 
"improvements" to a machine, which involve loading software onto it, 
**changes** the machine, thus making it a patentable product. The case 
in question doesn't even deny this possibility, it just makes the 
argument I do, which is that such things are, "obvious to those skilled 
in the art and hence unpatentable". You are saying that this is "not" a 
legal grounds to make something unpatentable. So, we have, "Stuffing 
instructions into a machine makes it new, therefor patentable", and, 
"Sorry, but even if this is a blindingly obvious solution for people 
that know how the machine works, its still patentable."

So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?

I am sure I linked the groklaw page talking about this some place, but 
maybe I didn't..

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

-- 
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:
> which is that such things are, "obvious to those skilled 
> in the art and hence unpatentable". 

Except they're not always, and it's not the patent examiner's job to say 
whether some *other* expert asked the same question would invent the same 
invention.

> "Sorry, but even if this is a blindingly obvious solution for people 
> that know how the machine works, its still patentable."

That's fine, but that's not really what the patent examiner looks at. Again, 
"obvious" has a technical legal definition that does *not* mean "anyone 
skilled in the art would have thought about this if asked."

Was RSA or Diffie-Helman "obvious"?  Was First Virtual "obvious"?  Both 
pretty much astounded the experts in the field, all of whom thought it was 
impossible to do such a thing at all.

Hell, I have a patent just issued on how to print different receipts on a 
credit card terminal depending on what you just bought.  It was damned 
obvious to me, but after talking to three manufacturers of terminals and 
asking how to do it and getting back "there's no way to do that on our brand 
of terminals", we figured it wasn't nearly so obvious to the experts in the 
field as it seemed.

> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?

OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.

If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
improved the television?

> I am sure I linked the groklaw page talking about this some place, but 
> maybe I didn't..
> 
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785
> 

"""

-- 
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:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785

Wrong button. Try that again.

"""
What I get from the paper is that there isn't really a difference between 
what a human does with a paper and pencil and what a computer does, except 
speed.
"""

There's really not a difference between what an automobile does and what a 
human does when walking except speed. Does that mean an automobile is 
unpatentable?

There's really not a difference between a machine that manufactures 
integrated circuits and what a human could theoretically do with a 
sufficiently steady hand and a sufficiently small pair of tweezers, either. 
So out goes that patent.

There's really nothing that google does that a human with paper and pencil 
couldn't do, so nothing google does is worthy of patent protection.

Why patent a new and more efficient space ship engine, if a human can *jump* 
to the moon, in theory with enough leg strength?

Do you see how silly that sounds?







"""
Computer programming is an exact science in that all the properties of a 
program and all the consequences of executing it in any given environment 
can, in principle, be found out from the text of the program itself by means 
of purely deductive reasoning.
"""
Except this isn't true. Programming computers is *not* purely mathematical. 
*Thinking* about programming computers is purely mathematical. A computer 
program that produces only mathematical results is, however, useless. And, 
indeed, computational theory proves you cannot determine all the 
consequences of executing it, so the statement is factually incorrect.




"""
If we build an electronic device that does the same calculations as the 
automated typewriter but with symbols encoded electronically instead, does 
their meaning change? Of course not, the symbols still mean the mathematics. 
The maths don't describe the computer or anything physical in the computer. 
The maths don't describe the software either.
"""

OK, so let's outlaw patents on any computer program that does no input or 
output and has no interaction with physical systems outside the CPU and 
memory subsystem. I'm down with that.





"Software is data."  That's why you're not patenting software, but rather 
the machine programmed with the software, which is what I was saying. 
They're claiming that adding the instructions makes the computer a new and 
more useful invention than the computer without the instructions. Find me a 
patent claim that claims to be patenting software itself, and I'll believe 
you. *That* is what I'm talking about.

You're saying "that should not be the case." I happen to agree, altho there 
are clearly methods and lists of instructions that I think should be 
patentable. But that's just debating a subject that we have no control over.

All the other crap in the groklaw page is confusion over whether bits have 
color.

-- 
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:
>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
> 
> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
> 
> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
> improved the television?
> 
Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. Do you 
patent the firmware, which isn't the *machine*, or the machine you load 
it into? Both? Issue a new patent for every "improved" version of the 
firmware? There is a difference between building something that is an 
improvement, and making "trivial" improvements, which amount to the 
equivalent of sticking a new poster in the paster stand out front of 
your theater. Its hardly *at all* relevant whether its a sheet of paper, 
if your "poster" is a display screen, and you updated it to show new 
content, or even do something with it that it didn't before. The "data" 
is still independent of the bloody container, at least for *most* 
things. Yet, the moment you can't "see" the result of the change, like a 
movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
"improvement"? WTF? I am betting that your terminal's non-obvious design 
didn't involve taking an "existing" one, and just adding software, did 
it? Had to design a new one that would accept such software?

Anyway, the whole thing is a bloody mess, because, as with my poster 
example, it gets damned fuzzy as to when software stops being "data" and 
suddenly becomes "improvement", and therefor can be/requires patent. 
Where is that line exactly? Oh, and remember, we are using the patent 
judges definition of "obvious" not the one you or me would, when looking 
at two identical digital posters, which just happen to contain different 
data... ;)

-- 
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:
> Darren New wrote:
>>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
>>
>> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
>>
>> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
>> improved the television?
>>
> Semantics.

Bingo! That's my point.  Guess what the whole court system is about? Semantics!

> making "trivial" improvements, 

How do you judge how "trivial" an improvement is? If you come up with a new 
calculation for an X-Ray machine's firmware that saves 30% more lives 
because the bad stuff shows up better, is that "trivial"?  It's math, but 
the math isn't what you're patenting. It's applying that math to improve the 
performace of that X-Ray machine that's patented. There's no patent on using 
the same math to improve the performance of your outboard motor.

> movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
> "improvement"? WTF? 

You're missing the point of the argument, probably on purpose.

You're arguing that a printing press shouldn't be patentable because all it 
does is add data to paper.

 > I am betting that your terminal's non-obvious design
> didn't involve taking an "existing" one, and just adding software, did 
> it? Had to design a new one that would accept such software?

No. My point was that *you* can't look at a patent and judge what is obvious 
*in retrospect*.

First Virtual invented an obvious way of handling "electronic commerce". Yet 
some of the greatest minds in the industry had spent years trying to figure 
out how to make it work. You could explain it to someone in 30 seconds, and 
they'd get this big s__t-eating grin as they realized what you were saying. 
But if it was obvious, there wouldn't have been annual conferences with 
hundreds of experts participating trying to discuss the best way of making 
it work.

> Anyway, the whole thing is a bloody mess, because, as with my poster 
> example, it gets damned fuzzy as to when software stops being "data" and 
> suddenly becomes "improvement", and therefor can be/requires patent. 
> Where is that line exactly? 

Well, yes, that's my point. You can't just say "it's software, it's not an 
improvement."   And you can't say "now that I see the answer, it's obvious."

> Oh, and remember, we are using the patent 
> judges definition of "obvious" not the one you or me would, 

That's also what I've been saying, repeatedly. "Obvious" to a patent 
examiner has a specific legal meaning independent of how easy it is to come 
up with. That *is* the definition I use when talking about patents.

Look at it this way.  Networking is just moving bits around, right? Is it 
really an "improvement" to move them faster? Do you think 1Mbps ethernet 
does excatly the same thing as 100Gbps ethernet does, only slower? I mean, 
there's nothing the phone system does that a human being couldn't do with a 
pencil and paper, only faster.  There's nothing wireless networking does 
that a wired network couldn't do, only with wires.  Why isn't "networking 
without wires" just as unpatentable as "poster without paper"?

-- 
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:
> Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. 

Note that if you use the rule "it's something a human could do with pencil 
and paper, only faster", you rule out patents on actual CPUs, on technology 
that makes chips faster, etc. Since they're by definition only doing what a 
human can do, only faster, then no improvements in semiconductor manufacture 
or chip layout can be patented either.

You have to be really careful when you start changing things that you don't 
start taking away stuff that really *should* be patentable. (At least, if 
you believe patents are worthwhile at all.)

-- 
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:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> So... Tell me again how no one is making this absurd argument?
>>>
>>> OK. Nobody said it's a new machine. They said it's an improved machine.
>>>
>>> If I figure out how to add color to TV broadcasts, have I not simply 
>>> improved the television?
>>>
>> Semantics.
> 
> Bingo! That's my point.  Guess what the whole court system is about? 
> Semantics!
> 
>> making "trivial" improvements, 
> 
> How do you judge how "trivial" an improvement is? If you come up with a 
> new calculation for an X-Ray machine's firmware that saves 30% more 
> lives because the bad stuff shows up better, is that "trivial"?  It's 
> math, but the math isn't what you're patenting. It's applying that math 
> to improve the performace of that X-Ray machine that's patented. There's 
> no patent on using the same math to improve the performance of your 
> outboard motor.
> 
>> movie poster in a digital display, it becomes now "data", but 
>> "improvement"? WTF? 
> 
> You're missing the point of the argument, probably on purpose.
> 
> You're arguing that a printing press shouldn't be patentable because all 
> it does is add data to paper.
> 

No I am not. I am arguing that the press **is**, changing the lettering 
around, so as to print a new book **is not**, nor, for that matter, is 
the bloody book in question. Software is an "improvement", the same way 
that re-arranging the letters on a printing press is. You are not 
changing what the original machine *is*, the whole point of the machine 
in the first place is to "allow you to print more than one page, with 
different words", so changing what is already supposed to be changed 
doesn't a) make it an improved machine, or b) require a new patent.

So, how is this "different" from my digital poster example, or even a 
computer. The whole point of both is that you can "change" the content, 
to have the "result" of its operation be something else. Why is 
rearranging symbols on a printing press not generating patents every 
time you do it, while a digital poster "might be", if its something it 
can already do, but the prior arrangement of symbols didn't support, and 
a computer with software on it **always is**? The only apparent 
difference to me seems to be how many things the machine is supposed to 
be able to do, and how complicated the data has to be to *get* that 
result. At which point you run afoul of defining "complex" again. What 
is complex on a PC where you have to write everything, including the 
graphics library. On one where you are using the existing library, and 
your "improvement" amounts to a few hundred lines of code though? How, 
other than by some argument made by software vendors that they are 
different, do these things *differ* in any logical or consistent manner? 
Or, to put it another way, at what point does your printing press become 
and "improvable machine", based solely upon what set of data you *apply* 
to it to change its behavior? Would, for example, a printer loaded with 
postscript be patentable, if you, say.. designed it to do nothing but 
print the same pamphlet forever, without stopping? Or does the fact that 
it does stop matter? Why? Why is it stopping, when done with the 
process, not patentable, but an application working the same way, where 
it has to be "loaded" into the machine, then unloads later, patentable, 
if loading postscript to what is basically a PC with a different output 
system isn't?

Where is this imaginary line drawn between these things, and why is it 
so damned inconsistent as to when, how, and if, it qualifies as 
"improving" the machine?

-- 
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:
>> Semantics. Seriously, try that one on something with firmware. 
> 
> Note that if you use the rule "it's something a human could do with 
> pencil and paper, only faster", you rule out patents on actual CPUs, on 
> technology that makes chips faster, etc. Since they're by definition 
> only doing what a human can do, only faster, then no improvements in 
> semiconductor manufacture or chip layout can be patented either.
> 
No I fracking don't. Its not enough that a human can do it. The 
requirement is not that it be a human doing it, it be that a human can 
"follow the instructions". A CPU replaces the human **not the 
instructions** the human is following. That is where the difference is. 
Software isn't a CPU, its not the "thing" doing anything, its, 
"instructions on what to do, using what ever tools are available to do 
it, to get a specific result". This is not the same as the thing that 
processes those instructions, its not the shovel digging the hole, its 
the note saying, "how deep, and where", its not a CPU, its the thing 
telling the CPU what its is supposed to do. It isn't the human being, or 
the wood cabinet they are building, its the bloody sheet of paper 
telling them, "Insert tab A into slot B.". And, to state it again, 
stuffing the sheet into a box of parts, and claiming that this makes the 
instructions part of a "patent", just because its not part of the box 
contents is not a valid argument, any more than the even sillier 
suggestion that, while I am building the cabinet, I become patentable, 
or, more precisely, "The interactions of any human with our set of 
instructions, which turn them into a manufacturer of cabinets.", which 
is what some of these things amount to claiming, only without using the 
term "human". But, the point of the distinction about "non-patentability 
of algorithms", is that you can't replace "human", with bird, monkey, 
space alien, or *CPU*, and suddenly have the definition thrown out. 
Either it is something that falls under the definition, or it isn't. If 
it isn't, then you need something more substantial than, "Well, its 
because a person isn't doing 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

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111151305785
> 
> Wrong button. Try that again.
> 
> """
> What I get from the paper is that there isn't really a difference 
> between what a human does with a paper and pencil and what a computer 
> does, except speed.
> """
> 
> There's really not a difference between what an automobile does and what 
> a human does when walking except speed. Does that mean an automobile is 
> unpatentable?
> 
Once again.. Its not what it *does*. If you tell a person to travel to 
NY, and assuming you had a car that could auto-navigate, tell *it* to 
drive to NY, the instructions telling to to drive there are not fracking 
patentable. Its not the **action** that determines what is and isn't, 
its the fact that you are giving instructions on what *to do*, which 
makes the **instructions** non-patentable. Software is, on a basic 
level, **instructions**, not the "thing" itself. You don't melt down a 
batch of bloody Java code, send it through an injection molder, to get a 
dashboard. Its not a thing in that sense. You *might* ***tell*** the 
injection molder to add X amount of plastic, using software, which is 
not the same thing as *building* a molder, or *making* a dashboard. Its 
"instructing" the machine to do something a specific way, which is human 
repeatable. Its not the ability to do it that matters, its the actually 
instruction, "Do this precisely this way, if you want the next step to 
be right.", just like if you where following a mathematical formula.

-- 
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:
> a computer with software on it **always is**?

Nobody said it always is. There are many patents rejected, both for software 
and hardware.

> Where is this imaginary line drawn between these things, and why is it 
> so damned inconsistent as to when, how, and if, it qualifies as 
> "improving" the machine?

Because you're patenting the results, not how you get there.

-- 
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:
> Software isn't a CPU, its not the "thing" doing anything,

And that's why people don't patent software. There's really no point in 
pursuing this if you're not going actually look at actual patents.

 > It isn't the human being, or
> the wood cabinet they are building, its the bloody sheet of paper 
> telling them, "Insert tab A into slot B.". 

No, it's the cabinet you get by following those instructions.

> is not a valid argument, 

How do you know, given that that's exactly the question before the supreme 
court right now?

> But, the point of the distinction about "non-patentability 
> of algorithms", is that you can't replace "human", with bird, monkey, 
> space alien, or *CPU*, and suddenly have the definition thrown out. 

People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware that 
accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to accomplish a 
specific task.

-- 
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:
> its the fact that you are giving instructions on what *to do*, which 
> makes the **instructions** non-patentable.

People don't patent the instructions.

> Software is, on a basic 
> level, **instructions**, not the "thing" itself. 

That's why people don't patent the instructions. If you're not even going to 
read the claims of a patent, there's not a lot of sense in discussing it 
with you.

-- 
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:
>> a computer with software on it **always is**?
> 
> Nobody said it always is. There are many patents rejected, both for 
> software and hardware.
> 
>> Where is this imaginary line drawn between these things, and why is it 
>> so damned inconsistent as to when, how, and if, it qualifies as 
>> "improving" the machine?
> 
> Because you're patenting the results, not how you get there.
> 
The problem of course being that the "result" is one of two things, a 
machine, which is following instructions, and therefor isn't really 
"improved", since its not doing something it couldn't, just something it 
didn't have instructions for, or its the *output*, which is like a 
printed book. I.e., it doesn't matter if your "printer"/"printing press" 
is printing to CD, video, sound, paper, or the damn moon, the end result 
is not a machine itself. And, a machine following instructions on how to 
produce that isn't somehow "improved" by loading code into it, otherwise 
software would be patentable *directly*, without the legerdemain and 
slight of hand being used to argue that its "improving" something else.

This, to me, is the key problem. A lot of stuff is... well, like the 
patent for "one click to buy from Amazon". Where is the "machine" 
involved? Its not the button you click, that is just the machine 
following instructions that say, "If the mouse clicks here, inform some 
code", which is instructions to send something to the web, where more 
instructions tell the other end to use that data to do something. At no 
point in the process is there a discreet "machine", other than the 
physical hardware. And the patent isn't about executing that specific 
bit of code on a specific bit of hardware. Its software, running 
software, interpreting data, which is sent by other software, which is 
**very** indirectly run on a machine. A machine that is a "general 
purpose" device, designed to mimic the human ability to, "follow 
instructions". What exactly got "improved" there? It certainly wasn't 
someone attaching a new part to a physical machine, or even *building* 
one that specifically handled that situation. Its all instructions, some 
of which just happen to include, "Wait for those other instructions, 
some place else, to give you data to act on." An instruction that is 
hardly different, in principle, to someone writing down on paper, "Wait 
until the sun goes down, before lighting the candle."

Its hard to conceive of a situation where you can logically argue that 
code, in whatever form, isn't, in principle, possible for a human to 
follow, or where the "way" the result is shown, or "how" it gets the 
data it needs, or "why" it needs to wait for that data, makes the 
resulting instructions stop being instructions, and become a "device" of 
some sort.

Point is, if I could build a robot that could read, and build, the same 
cabinet, from the same instructions, simply moving those instructions to 
a data chip doesn't make it an, "improvement to the robot". Its still 
"reading" them, following them, and performing steps, based on them, 
regardless of what they are *read* from, and the only protection those 
instructions should receive is copyright, not 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:
> People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware 
> that accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to 
> accomplish a specific task.
> 
In which you just contradicted yourself. Specific tasks are not 
relevant. X + Y = Z is a specific task too, and if you mean "specific" 
as in, "The numbers need to be 2, 3 and 5.", then just about every, 
"algorithm applied to accomplish a specific task.", would be invalid, 
since they are no where near that *specific*. You shouldn't be allowed 
to have it both ways, yet, part of the problem seems to be that many are 
provisionally allowed, based "specifically" on this sort of slight of hand.

-- 
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:
>> its the fact that you are giving instructions on what *to do*, which 
>> makes the **instructions** non-patentable.
> 
> People don't patent the instructions.
> 
>> Software is, on a basic level, **instructions**, not the "thing" itself. 
> 
> That's why people don't patent the instructions. If you're not even 
> going to read the claims of a patent, there's not a lot of sense in 
> discussing it with you.
> 
Well, then don't. I consider the wording, no matter what it says, to be 
little more than slight of hand. A, "Well, the instructions are 
copyrighted, but the combination of the instructions and the machine, 
which produce X result are patented." No, the result is, as you say, but 
even that is imho, questionable, since in most cases, the result is 
transitory, and of a nature that makes it basically either data to be 
moved/transmitted/stored and used some place else, of some equivalent to 
a printed page. Last I checked, you can't patent books either, yet, 
under your definition, they are the result, just like the cabinet. The 
problem is, simply, if your "result", or even the process to get that 
result, amount to data->instructions->resulting in more data, well.. 
This differs how from say, computing the area of a circle, using the 
"data" out of the prior step, in which you determined the circumference? 
Its just a step in the process. There is no "cabinet" at the end of it, 
which constitutes a tangible asset.

Might there be some set of such patents that "may" be, if not iffy, then 
beneficial, so allowed? Maybe. A lot of people have argued that such a 
claim is itself suspect, based on their experience and the rising costs 
of having to cover 50,000 different "patents" that might be needed, just 
to show a pink, pokadot, 3D cube, using X companies hardware, with Y 
companies software, with Z persons library, in Q country, if standing in 
your head, while wearing a dress... In short, if it costs you 500 times 
what it takes to make something to cover all the damn patents, people 
are hardly going to be inclined to invent it... In the computer world, 
some things get *close* to that bad, and everyone knows 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
>  and therefor isn't really "improved", 

Well, that's your opinion, which doesn't matter, since the Supreme Court is 
looking into it, yes?

> patent for "one click to buy from Amazon". Where is the "machine" 
> involved? 

That's probably not a machine patent, but a business process patent.

In any case, as I said, you need to look at "good" patents, because there 
are crap patents everywhere. If you made laws based on the worst example you 
could find, there wouldn't be any patents for anything.

> Its hard to conceive of a situation where you can logically argue that 
> code, in whatever form, isn't, in principle, possible for a human to 
> follow, 

I already gave you an example. You're clearly not reading, so I'll stop now.

But here's another example: Big Blue, the chess-playing machine.

> or where the "way" the result is shown, or "how" it gets the 
> data it needs, or "why" it needs to wait for that data, makes the 
> resulting instructions stop being instructions, and become a "device" of 
> some sort.

I gave you numerous examples of that too. The problem is you're thinking 
like a programmer, indoctrinated into the idea that software describes 
mathematical processes.

-- 
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:
>> People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware 
>> that accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to 
>> accomplish a specific task.
>>
> In which you just contradicted yourself. Specific tasks are not 
> relevant.

They're very relevant.

 > X + Y = Z is a specific task too,

No, that would be a mathematical formula, which is not patentable.

Tell me, are you actually educated in this field? Have you personally ever 
talked to a patent lawyer and had them explain how the patent system works? 
Or are you just reading groklaw and thinking that tells you how to be a 
patent lawyer?

Because what you're saying leads me to believe you haven't any idea what 
you're talking about.

-- 
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:
> Well, then don't. I consider the wording, no matter what it says, to be 
> little more than slight of hand. 

Welcome to the legal system!

> This differs how from say, computing the area of a circle, using the 
> "data" out of the prior step, in which you determined the circumference? 

That's a mathematical formula. Applying that formula in order to calculate 
how far to turn the wheel as you go around a corner in order to reduce the 
wear on tire treads of your car? That's patentable. See the difference?

> some things get *close* to that bad, and everyone knows it.

Now you're arguing something completely different. You're arguing "should" 
instead of "is", so there's no real point in dicussing *that*, you see?

-- 
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

Here's a bit of grey area:  should a unique mechanical device that 
performs a new and unobvious function be patentable if it is merely the 
output someone made using a CAD/CAM device, therefore no different in a 
way from a book printed on a printing press?

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Here's a bit of grey area: 

There are lots of grey areas. What about a dedicated machine that performs a 
function which, because of later developments, can now be computerized. 
Perhaps a clunky analog audio processing device replaced nowadays with a 
DSP? Does that mean the DSP isn't infringing on the patent? Does that mean 
the original device should never have been patentable?

What if you take an algorithm and describe it with rod logic, like a babbage 
computing engine? Is it patentable? Does it make software implementations 
infringing? Does it make sense to say doing something with atoms is 
patentable but doing something with electrons isn't?

Take a dedicated word-processing machine, like those old typewriters. Does 
that mean a modern software-only implementation would infringe? Or not? Or 
does it mean that the original machine should never have passed patent in 
the first place?

And, of course, realize that patents are lists of instructions, so 
technically, if you're saying you can't infringe with a device following a 
list of arbitrary instructions, then feeding the plans described by a patent 
into a computer to manufacture the device so described should not be 
patentable. If you can't patent following instructions with by a general 
purpose computer, then you can't patent anything a general purpose computer 
can create, including one hooked up to a manufacturing machine capable of 
manufacturing patented devices.

-- 
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

Can a self-modifying Von Neumann machine patent its 
unique/mutated/modified offspring?

...

Can a parent patent their child?

The possibilities are endless!

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Can a self-modifying Von Neumann machine patent its 
> unique/mutated/modified offspring?
> 
> ...
> 
> Can a parent patent their child?
> 
> The possibilities are endless!
> 
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Well, we have people patenting genes, which are "found", not "invented", 
so... lol

-- 
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:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> People don't patent algorithms. They either patent computer hardware 
>>> that accomplishes a task, or they patent an algorithm applied to 
>>> accomplish a specific task.
>>>
>> In which you just contradicted yourself. Specific tasks are not relevant.
> 
> They're very relevant.
> 
>  > X + Y = Z is a specific task too,
> 
> No, that would be a mathematical formula, which is not patentable.
> 
> Tell me, are you actually educated in this field? Have you personally 
> ever talked to a patent lawyer and had them explain how the patent 
> system works? Or are you just reading groklaw and thinking that tells 
> you how to be a patent lawyer?
> 
> Because what you're saying leads me to believe you haven't any idea what 
> you're talking about.
> 

There is also a saying, "The surest way for someone to not understand 
something is for their paycheck to be based on failing to understand 
it." I think some of these patent lawyers are falling pray to this 
problem. Same with most of the people writing a lot of these patents. If 
there must be a range for which it does apply, and this isn't at all 
certain, given the speed and nature of computer development and rapid 
turn over of applications, then it has got to be a **lot** narrower than 
what is being applied. And, you are missing my point again. Yes, what I 
gave as an example is a mathematical formula, but the rules don't 
require that it be a formula, just that it have the same attributes as one.

But, what ever. Our arguments on the matter are not going to define 
where the lines get drawn.

-- 
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:
>> Well, then don't. I consider the wording, no matter what it says, to 
>> be little more than slight of hand. 
> 
> Welcome to the legal system!
> 
>> This differs how from say, computing the area of a circle, using the 
>> "data" out of the prior step, in which you determined the circumference? 
> 
> That's a mathematical formula. Applying that formula in order to 
> calculate how far to turn the wheel as you go around a corner in order 
> to reduce the wear on tire treads of your car? That's patentable. See 
> the difference?
> 
Yeah, you are doing *more* calculations. Its still, "Take data, feed it 
into formulas, get a correct result.", and you are still just taking 
data from X, feeding it into Y, then into Z, to get the end result. You 
want to built a machine to do that, find. You build an algorithm to do 
that, its not part of the machine, nor is the machine... Oh, hell. 
Forget 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There is also a saying, "The surest way for someone to not understand 
> something is for their paycheck to be based on failing to understand 
> it." 

Yet, oddly enough, we have an adversarial court system, wherein if you don't 
understand something about the law, you tend to lose your cases.

> then it has got to be a **lot** narrower than 
> what is being applied. 

I'm not arguing that.

> And, you are missing my point again. Yes, what I 
> gave as an example is a mathematical formula, but the rules don't 
> require that it be a formula, just that it have the same attributes as one.

Yes. And a formula for a circle doesn't have the same attributes as a method 
for calculating how much torque to apply to a differential to reduce the 
tread wear of your tires, given that the motion of the gears is approximated 
by a circle closely enough that you can apply the formula that you can't 
otherwise patent.

You're arguing that you're right, except for the details. I'm saying the 
details matter.

> But, what ever. Our arguments on the matter are not going to define 
> where the lines get drawn.

That's what I've been saying.

-- 
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:
> Yeah, you are doing *more* calculations. Its still, "Take data, feed it 
> into formulas, get a correct result.", and you are still just taking 
> data from X, feeding it into Y, then into Z, to get the end result. 

No, you're not. The end result isn't useful unless it *actually* reduces the 
wear in your tires. You can calculate all the discrete logarithms you want, 
but unless you establish a process of communication, you're not doing public 
key encryption.

-- 
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:
>> Yeah, you are doing *more* calculations. Its still, "Take data, feed 
>> it into formulas, get a correct result.", and you are still just 
>> taking data from X, feeding it into Y, then into Z, to get the end 
>> result. 
> 
> No, you're not. The end result isn't useful unless it *actually* reduces 
> the wear in your tires. You can calculate all the discrete logarithms 
> you want, but unless you establish a process of communication, you're 
> not doing public key encryption.
> 
The end result isn't useful in algorithms unless its "correct". In this 
case, "correct" means you got the answer you wanted, not something else. 
But, thought we where dropping this. lol

-- 
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:
> But, thought we where dropping this. lol

Since at this point you seem to be *intentionally* missing the point, sure.

-- 
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:
>> But, thought we where dropping this. lol
> 
> Since at this point you seem to be *intentionally* missing the point, sure.
> 
Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 
Seriously though, this reminds me of a discussion I had one day with a 
guy that was going to college for Electronic Engineering, at the same 
time I was taking Computer Information Systems, on approaches to AI and 
what we thought would actually work. We spent like 3 hours dancing 
around each others definitions and statements, without once realizing 
that there was no real core difference in our position. It took stepping 
back on my part and presenting a redefinition of the problem.

In our case.. I am not sure I could come up with a redefinition that 
wouldn't dig the hole deeper. The ball would therefor seem to be in your 
court, if you wanted to continue, but, unfortunately, the last few 
attempts you made to describe what you thought "my" position was 
where... Lets just say you where reading things between the lines that 
didn't even involve the same book, never mind printing date. I think we 
are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.

-- 
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:
> Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 

That was a complement. :-)

> I think we are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.

Perhaps. I think you're still talking about "should" and I'm still talking 
about "is". I'm not advocating that software *should* be patentable. I'm 
simply saying that right now it is, and I find your assertion that everyone 
including every lawyer on both sides of the argument and all the judges and 
patent examiners are colluding to "forget" that some things aren't 
patentable seems far-fetched.

Discussing the "should" of it might be interesting, but only with someone 
willing to discuss shades of grey.

-- 
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:
>> Intentionally? I think I will refrain from making the same accusation... 
> 
> That was a complement. :-)
> 
>> I think we are perhaps both badly misunderstanding each other.
> 
> Perhaps. I think you're still talking about "should" and I'm still 
> talking about "is". I'm not advocating that software *should* be 
> patentable. I'm simply saying that right now it is, and I find your 
> assertion that everyone including every lawyer on both sides of the 
> argument and all the judges and patent examiners are colluding to 
> "forget" that some things aren't patentable seems far-fetched.
> 
> Discussing the "should" of it might be interesting, but only with 
> someone willing to discuss shades of grey.
> 
Well. In a sense you are correct. It is a should. But its a "should" 
based on a reasonable argument about the nature of software and 
"existing" definitions of what is excluded. The argument isn't that 
there is collusion, its that the nature of software is sufficiently 
complex that one can't simply expect patent lawyers, or judges, to have 
a clear understanding of what it *is*, and under such conditions, its 
all too easy to create a long series of cases supporting it, when it 
should never have been in the first place. That is all that is being 
argued by the Groklaw site too. That the nature of the subject should 
have excluded it, but that most didn't look at it right, and some of 
them may have, due to their own interests, *intentionally* misled the 
patent system into looking at it in a way that supported patents, while 
being careful to derail attempts to argue against it.

And, seriously, how many of the companies involved wouldn't have wanted 
patents? I would argue that, in most cases, the people involved in such 
cases where "both" companies or individuals, who where arguing not over 
whether someone should own a patent on it, but who. They are hardly, on 
either side, given the number their own law departments already have on 
things, going to argue that the process **itself** is invalid, not just 
the specific patent. I am sure you can think of parallels where this 
has, or could, happen.

-- 
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:
> 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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> I am trying to proceed on logic here,

You're arguing that patents on non-patentable stuff are permitted because 
those who have patents on other non-patentable stuff avoid arguing that such 
things should be non-patentable for fear of setting a precedent on that subject.

I'm saying it doesn't work that way.

> Its not about *if* the system has been doing this stuff, 

Doing what "stuff"? Trying to win patent cases?

>>> 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..

They're not going to say "let's loose this case, just in case we win the 
case, it gets appealed, we win the appeal, it gets appealed again, we win 
*that* appeal, and it sets a precedent that our current employer may need to 
fight in some future case that hasn't come up yet."  Yes, that's what I'm 
saying, seriously.

If you know of any lawyer that intentionally looses a case just in case they 
might win multiple appeals in the future, let me know so I can avoid hiring 
them.

Because, you know, they could always just intentionally loose the appeal.

-- 
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