http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390

  If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
is, it's just crazy.

  (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. Many systems have
had automatic graphical sudos for a long, long time, including eg. Suse
Linux.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390
> 
>   If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
> prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
> is, it's just crazy.
> 
>   (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. Many systems have
> had automatic graphical sudos for a long, long time, including eg. Suse
> Linux.)

The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only 
prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard 
with screens on each key.

And last year, Apple filed a patent for such a keyboard. Despite Optimus 
being produced and sold already.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only 
> prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard 
> with screens on each key.

  I find the whole "patent pending" thing just ridiculous. Here if you
publish something before patenting it, you don't get the patent, period.
Simple and effective.

> And last year, Apple filed a patent for such a keyboard. Despite Optimus 
> being produced and sold already.

  At least patent lawyers and the patent office are getting rich. As
I understand it, patenting is quite expensive in the US. With all those
completely ridiculous patents one would think that it's free, or at least
really cheap, but AFAIK it's quite expensive.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. 

I'm guessing the innovation is in part limiting the presentation to accounts 
with permissions to do the job and sorting those so they come before 
accounts with permissions to do more than needed.

Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged account.

Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.

For example, if your graphical sudo doesn't have a help feature, it's not 
infringing on this patent. On the other hand, help features are "obvious" so 
this isn't sufficient to distinguish this patent enough that it should have 
passed based just on that. IANAL.

If you have only root and non-root, you aren't infringing this patent. If 
you don't have a way to have accounts "associated with users" (by which I 
assume they mean "in the same group"), you don't infringe. If you don't have 
"sufficient but not unlimited rights", you're not infringing the patent. If 
you don't adjust the list based on frequency of use, you're not infringing 
the patent. If you don't have pictures associated with user accounts, you're 
not infringing the patent. If you don't authenticate to the system based on 
passwords, you're not infringing the patent.

Note that if you have *all* of these elements, you're no tinfringing the 
first claim. (I didn't delve into the second claim much, except to see it's 
basically "claim 1, only with capabilities".)  Usually when a patent has 300 
clauses in the first claim, it's because it *needs* all 300 to be considered 
different from what has come before.  *Then* you have to read all the mail 
that went between the patent office, where the patent office said "You say 
authenticator, but we already have smart cards to do this" and MS says "We 
don't mean smart cards, then. How about now?"

Which is not to say I'm not joyous that the Supreme Court is looking at 
whether to throw all this kind of crap out, but it looks like MS at least is 
already trying to work around that by claiming to patent a computer disk 
with a program on it.

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged account.

  Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
different groups which have different access privileges, and then you can
use sudo to perform a command with the privileges of any of those accounts
(not just the root account).

  (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
system, but at least the command-line version does.)

> Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.

  Wouldn't be the first time that patent infringement has been claimed on
someone infringing only a part of the patent.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged
>> account.
> 
>   Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
> different groups which have different access privileges, and then you can
> use sudo to perform a command with the privileges of any of those accounts
> (not just the root account).
> 
>   (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
> system, but at least the command-line version does.)

And there's even something called "PolicyKit" that lets you elevate enough 
privileges to execute one particular operation, instead of getting full-
blown root access.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390
>>
>>   If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
>> prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
>> is, it's just crazy.
>>
>>   (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. Many systems have
>> had automatic graphical sudos for a long, long time, including eg. Suse
>> Linux.)
> 
> The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only 
> prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard 
> with screens on each key.
> 
> And last year, Apple filed a patent for such a keyboard. Despite Optimus 
> being produced and sold already.
> 
They still search these things using filing cabinets and punch cards 
don't they? Seriously, how the frack hard would it be to, at minimum, 
develop a computer DB and semi-smart AI that could catch even 50% of 
this stuff, freeing up people to look at the 50% it didn't?

-- 
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

Warp wrote:
>   Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong to
> different groups which have different access privileges, 

You mean like file permissions and such? Sure, that makes sense.

>   (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
> system, but at least the command-line version does.)

I've never seen a UNIX system that would say "you can't delete that file, 
but do you know the password to any of these accounts that are in the same 
group as that file? If so, type it in." :-) That would be user friendly, and 
UNIX doesn't like user friendly. ;-)

Actually, it's more like a leak of security information you probably 
shouldn't be leaking. That's a joke.

>> Remember, it's not "graphical sudo". It's *everything* in the entire claim.
> 
>   Wouldn't be the first time that patent infringement has been claimed on
> someone infringing only a part of the patent.

Well, sure. There are infringement claims on things you're not infringing at 
all. The question is whether you *win* the case, in which case the answer is 
"no".  Not that you don't have to fight the case, but it's hard to imagine a 
patent system where infringement is obvious on its face.  The ruling being 
discussed by the Supreme Court would go a long way towards helping.

-- 
   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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> They still search these things using filing cabinets and punch cards 
> don't they? Seriously, how the frack hard would it be to, at minimum, 
> develop a computer DB and semi-smart AI that could catch even 50% of 
> this stuff, freeing up people to look at the 50% it didn't?

What makes you think they don't?  Do you actually understand what the rules 
are on what is "obvious"?  Hint: It doesn't mean "Gee, I could have thought 
of that."

It's like all the people complaining about the patent on PB&J sandwiches, 
without actually reading any claims.

-- 
   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 11/17/09 17:02, Warp wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez<nic### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> The Optimus keyboard website still says "patents pending". There is not only
>> prior art but also a prior *patent* (filed a decade ago) about a keyboard
>> with screens on each key.
>
>    I find the whole "patent pending" thing just ridiculous. Here if you
> publish something before patenting it, you don't get the patent, period.
> Simple and effective.

	Are patents granted quickly where you are?

	I don't really know the details or the legal significance, but over 
here, I view "patent pending" as a courtesy notice to all others that if 
you happened to get the same bright idea after I've submitted the patent 
papers, then be warned that you shouldn't try to base your business off 
of it because you'll be forced to stop in a few years when I get the patent.

	Patent pending need not be simply for those who've published stuff. 
It's for those who've applied for a patent and want to start creating 
the product - why wait till the patent has been granted?


-- 
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.

Post a reply to this message

> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390
>
>  If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
> prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
> is, it's just crazy.

This is not unique to software patents, and don't worry, just because a 
patent was granted doesn't mean it will stand up in court.  I highly doubt 
this will prevent any competitor from making a graphical sudo.

Post a reply to this message

>>  If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
>> prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
>> is, it's just crazy.
> 
> This is not unique to software patents, and don't worry, just because a 
> patent was granted doesn't mean it will stand up in court.  I highly 
> doubt this will prevent any competitor from making a graphical sudo.

Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the side 
with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue. Also, I'm 
told it's not uncommon for a company to go out of business just because 
somebody *threatens* to sue them. Even if they don't have a hope in hell 
of winning.

Post a reply to this message

> Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the side 
> with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue.

Well if one side can't afford any lawyers then it might make it tricky, but 
after that I don't think the money each side has will have much influence.

> Also, I'm told it's not uncommon for a company to go out of business just 
> because somebody *threatens* to sue them. Even if they don't have a hope 
> in hell of winning.

Yeh, I guess if you don't have enough money to pay lawyers and are just 
relying on one product that *might* infringe on someone elses patent, you're 
a bit screwed.

Post a reply to this message

>> Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the 
>> side with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue.
> 
> Well if one side can't afford any lawyers then it might make it tricky, 
> but after that I don't think the money each side has will have much 
> influence.

Seems to me more like a case of "the most expensive lawyer always wins".

> Yeh, I guess if you don't have enough money to pay lawyers and are just 
> relying on one product that *might* infringe on someone elses patent, 
> you're a bit screwed.

Threatening to sue somebody is a good way to make investors go elsewhere.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091111094923390
> 
>   If the US patent office was capable of actually checking for obvious
> prior art, then *maybe* one could perhaps accept software patents. As it
> is, it's just crazy.
> 
>   (And no, having a graphical sudo is not innovative. Many systems have
> had automatic graphical sudos for a long, long time, including eg. Suse
> Linux.)

Simply interpreting the U.S. Constitution as if it meant what it says 
would put a stop to this.

Given any computational task, there is probably one best way to compute 
it.  The person who discovers this algorithm has done just that, he has 
*discovered* it.  The USC grants authority to protect the interests of 
"Authors and Inventors," and not to discoverers.

It would be as if the discoverer of the postulated transuranic stable 
element applied for, and was granted, a patent on the physical data of 
the element, and demanded a fee from anyone who, say, decided to publish 
the data in a chemistry textbook (or even mention that it existed, since 
that is an inherent part of the discovery).

Now if M$ is patenting the *idea* of sudo (either in or out of a GUI), 
then it's still time to call BS, because ideas in themselves are not 
subject to copyright; or else Walt Disney can sue anyone who animates a 
mouse.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:

> ideas in themselves are not 
> subject to copyright; or else Walt Disney can sue anyone who animates a 
> mouse.

Oh, what irony that would be...

(Mickey Mouse is a minor modification of an earlier animated mouse, 
created to get around copyright issues.)

Post a reply to this message

> Given any computational task, there is probably one best way to compute 
> it.

For each definition of "best" there is probably one optimal algorithm, but I 
doubt many of those optimal algorithms exist anywhere.

> The person who discovers this algorithm has done just that, he has 
> *discovered* it.

Discovering something implies that the thing exists to start with.  If 
nobody has ever written such an algorithm before then it doesn't exist!  I 
could use your same argument to say that I *discovered* a really clever 
mechanical design rather than actually inventing it.  How is that any 
different?

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Yeh, I guess if you don't have enough money to pay lawyers and are just 
> relying on one product that *might* infringe on someone elses patent, you're 
> a bit screwed.

  Isn't there a constitutional right to get free legal defence?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Now if M$ is patenting the *idea* of sudo (either in or out of a GUI), 
> then it's still time to call BS, because ideas in themselves are not 
> subject to copyright

  Copyright has nothing to do with patents, or the other way around.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Isn't there a constitutional right to get free legal defence?

Only in criminal cases. I.e., if the government arrests you and threatens to 
put you in jail, then the presumptions are that the government (a) has so 
many more resources than any individual could muster and (b) is supposed to 
be working for the people anyway, so you get the free lawyer if you want.

If Company A says Company B owes them money, then no, Company B doesn't get 
any lawyers for free.

Once again, it's protection from the government and not so much from each 
other that's written into the constitution.

-- 
   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

John VanSickle wrote:
> The person who discovers this algorithm has done just that, he has 
> *discovered* it.  The USC grants authority to protect the interests of 
> "Authors and Inventors," and not to discoverers.

I disagree. The person who "discovered" how to send motion pictures over the 
air, or who "discovered" how to record those signals reliably onto a piece 
of magnetic tape also simply "discovered the best way to do that."

The algorithms aren't sitting around waiting to be dug up out of the ground 
any more than the steps for turning five poisonous chemicals into a 
beneficial medicine are sitting around waiting to be "discovered".

-- 
   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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Isn't there a constitutional right to get free legal defence?

> Only in criminal cases. I.e., if the government arrests you and threatens to 
> put you in jail, then the presumptions are that the government (a) has so 
> many more resources than any individual could muster and (b) is supposed to 
> be working for the people anyway, so you get the free lawyer if you want.

> If Company A says Company B owes them money, then no, Company B doesn't get 
> any lawyers for free.

> Once again, it's protection from the government and not so much from each 
> other that's written into the constitution.

  So if a company sues you and you have no money to hire a lawyer, you lose
automatically regardless of whether you are guilty or not?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   So if a company sues you and you have no money to hire a lawyer, you lose
> automatically regardless of whether you are guilty or not?

Or a lawyer will take it on contingency. Usually what you do in that case, 
assuming the company suing you doesn't have a good reason to do so, is you 
counter-sue the company for your expenses in defending the suit.

In any case, I don't know for sure how that all works. I just know it isn't 
in the constitution. :-)

Remember that all this "the company sues you" is state laws, so there are at 
least 53 different ways it can play out (50 states, district of columbia, 
federal rules that override state laws, and whatever territories we still 
have that aren't states).

But yeah, if you're too broke to hire a lawyer, chances are good you're too 
broke to be worth suing, too.  Plus, if the amount of money is small enough 
(like, $1000-$10,000 is the range of limits) then neither side gets to have 
a lawyer. That's "small claims court" you might have heard mentioned.

-- 
   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 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:32:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> They still search these things using filing cabinets and punch cards
> don't they?

I don't believe so - there's several publicly accessible PTO database 
search engines; IBM used to have one (don't know if they do any more) and 
I believe Google does as well now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:35:01 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> I've never seen a UNIX system that would say "you can't delete that
> file, but do you know the password to any of these accounts that are in
> the same group as that file? If so, type it in."  That would be user
> friendly, and UNIX doesn't like user friendly. ;-)
> 
> Actually, it's more like a leak of security information you probably
> shouldn't be leaking. That's a joke.

That's an interesting view, actually - "you don't have permission to do 
this so authenticate as one of these users" does seem like a security 
breach to me - since it tells a hacker who they need to authenticate as 
in order to do 'x', the hacker can concentrate on that account.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:39:33 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> Which doesn't happen with sudo, since there's only one privileged
>>> account.
>> 
>>   Actually you can create different accounts in unix, which may belong
>>   to
>> different groups which have different access privileges, and then you
>> can use sudo to perform a command with the privileges of any of those
>> accounts (not just the root account).
>> 
>>   (Granted, I don't know if graphical sudos allow you to do this in any
>> system, but at least the command-line version does.)
> 
> And there's even something called "PolicyKit" that lets you elevate
> enough privileges to execute one particular operation, instead of
> getting full- blown root access.

Yes, as well as things like SELinux and AppArmor which provide MAC.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:36:19 +0000, Invisible wrote:

> Trouble is, as I understand it, in the US the winner is always the side
> with the most money, regardless of the facts of the issue.

Not always the case, but certainly often is.  I know there are cases 
where the underdog has won in a patent infringement suit.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:00:03 -0800, Darren New 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....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> the hacker can concentrate on that account.

User-friendly is always in counterpoint to secure. No way around it.

-- 
   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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:32:59 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>> They still search these things using filing cabinets and punch cards
>> don't they?
> 
> I don't believe so - there's several publicly accessible PTO database 
> search engines; IBM used to have one (don't know if they do any more) and 
> I believe Google does as well now.
> 
> Jim
Yeah, well. One wonders, even with the unfortunate lack of funding and 
personnel you hear about. Some of this stuff just gets bloody stupid.

-- 
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:
> 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