 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090282325.pdf
They're apparently trying to patent "graphing data that's in a spreadsheet".
I didn't go thru it in detail, but unless a "sparkline" means something
other than what's in the pictures, this seems really ... unlikely to clear,
I would hope. I mean, didn't Lotos 123 do this back before Windows?
--
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:
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090282325.pdf
>
> They're apparently trying to patent "graphing data that's in a
> spreadsheet".
>
> I didn't go thru it in detail, but unless a "sparkline" means something
> other than what's in the pictures, this seems really ... unlikely to
> clear, I would hope. I mean, didn't Lotos 123 do this back before Windows?
Oh, I see. Like this.
http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx
That said, the "primary inventor" blogs that someone else already invented
them and published them in a book, so I'm not real sure about that whole
perjury thing with asserting you've invented it yourself goes.
--
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 <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> I mean, didn't Lotos 123 do this back before Windows?
Even if Microsoft itself invented the concept why would that matter?
I don't think that even in the US you can invent a concept and use it for
15 years and *then* try to patent it. Prior art applies even if the patent
applicant is the original inventor.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Oh, I see. Like this.
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/excel/archive/2009/07/17/sparklines-in-excel.aspx
>
> That said, the "primary inventor" blogs that someone else already
> invented them and published them in a book, so I'm not real sure about
> that whole perjury thing with asserting you've invented it yourself goes.
AFAIK Tufte invented sparklines, but I haven't seen them used in
spreadsheet software before, so maybe Microsoft is claiming that it's
the way they've integrated them into a spreadsheet that's new?
In any case, I don't think it's worth worrying too much about these
specific patents except as symptoms of a broken software patent system.
It's my understanding that most large sortware companies try to patent
everything they can and developers are actively *discouraged* from
trying to determine if someone else has invented it before (since
there's apparently larger fee for infringing on a previous patent in
that case).
I've heard that the reason for this is because, since software patents
are sort of broken, it's almost unavoidable every large company has tons
of patents on things used by the other companies (and probably
independently invented there). This having a large bucket of your own
patents provides sort of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario where
one company can't attempt to sue another for patent infringement without
suffering a massive counter-suit. So it's not necessarily the case the
MS even intends to enforce these patents, but rather they're just part
of this "patent everything" process.
I've heard most of this second hand, to take it with a bit of a grain of
salt, but it certainly does explain why there's so many ridiculous
patents but comparatively few cases of the (major) companies suing
everybody for infringing on them. Also, any patent system in which this
is a standard strategy pretty clearly has some major problems, so I hope
it's fixed someday.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> AFAIK Tufte invented sparklines, but I haven't seen them used in
> spreadsheet software before, so maybe Microsoft is claiming that it's
> the way they've integrated them into a spreadsheet that's new?
Could be, could be. And it's only an application, after all.
> In any case, I don't think it's worth worrying too much about these
> specific patents except as symptoms of a broken software patent system.
The whole patent system is broken. We just hear about the software patents
more. :-)
> and developers are actively *discouraged* from
> trying to determine if someone else has invented it before (since
> there's apparently larger fee for infringing on a previous patent in
> that case).
You're supposed to report all prior art you're aware of. There's no
requirement for you to report prior art you're not aware of. There's no fee
for filing a patent that can't be issued on the basis of prior art in
another patent, so there's no infringement possible. IANAL.
> I've heard that the reason for this is because, since software patents
> are sort of broken,
They're broken in the sense that they're descriptions of formal systems that
can be mapped arbitrarily to other formal systems. I might patent something
that says "The user enters a password, and the computer grants access to the
data", and then later argue that "enters" should be equivalent to "swipes"
and "password" should be equivalent to "credit card number" and "data"
should be equivalent to "bank account balance", and suddenly I'm suing a
credit card terminal company over my clever password scheme.
*That* is what's broken about software patents.
The rest are broken because they're either obvious-to-people or
non-enabling, yet they pass anyway.
> So it's not necessarily the case the
> MS even intends to enforce these patents, but rather they're just part
> of this "patent everything" process.
Generally, yes. Or people will patent things in order to get the patent
office to do a patent search. You decide to do X, but you don't want to get
sued in 5 years when X is successful and someone has a patent on X, so you
patent it yourself. If the patent clears, you're good to go.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I mean, didn't Lotos 123 do this back before Windows?
>
> Even if Microsoft itself invented the concept why would that matter?
That's what I was trying to imply - Lotus 1-2-3 was out so very long ago and
graphed data from a spreadsheet and kept it up to date. Not that it was
not-Microsoft, but it was before even Excel was around.
It turns out that it wasn't putting it *in* the spreadsheet as such. It
would be interesting to see what parts of things were already done that
they're claiming are inapplicable. You really can't tell that just from the
application or patent.
--
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" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b058a4d$1@news.povray.org...
> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20090282325.pdf
>
> They're apparently trying to patent...
Tangentially related...
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202435316698&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
I have new hope. Not only are the justices skeptical of Bilski, it actually
sounds like the SCOTUS justices recognize that many types of patents should
never have been approved. In fact, they even seemed to attack the Deputy
Solicitor General, because he was still in favor of things such as software
patents.
Software is, and should be, covered by copyright law. Period. Just as one
person can use an idea in their novel, even if it was obviously taken from
another novel, it should not be prevented (via patent). If you copy all, or
a portion of, the other novel, it's a copyright violation. Aside from text
and interface (copyright), computer programs are mostly mathematics and
databases, both of which are not patentable, nor copyrightable. Alas, we
have software patents, nonetheless. Someone dropped the ball.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the SCOTUS shot them all down? I have a little
bit of hope. If it doesn't happen in this case, it appears that they are
simply waiting for a better case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> It turns out that it wasn't putting it *in* the spreadsheet as such.
If patents on prior art can be granted if the patent does some tiny
detail differently and originally, wouldn't that mean that, conversely,
you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
being different from the patent description?
The latter would make patents basically useless, but that means that
patents should not be granted on prior art simply because the patent has
a minor difference compared to all existing usage.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I've heard that the reason for this is because, since software patents
> are sort of broken,
Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
software that isn't technically a set of instructions, which, in
principle, a human could not reproduce themselves, if they had some
means to access the same data, and some means to produce the same
results on a computer screen. Can't? Well, then, software patents are
not legal at all, since you can't patent such "instruction sets", as
defined by the laws set up to define what you *can* patent. The problem
is, no one mentions this niggling little detail, or makes sure the
people in the court, like the judge, knows that software "is" such a
thing. One side argues its not, but never manages to say why, the other
side argues it is, and babbles about unique, protecting IP, etc., and
the courts go by what they know, which is, "Someone wrote the thing, and
its all incomprehensible to me, so sounds like a machine, not instructions."
If that where true though, I, and others, would have been breaching
patent every time they tweaked the read code on the Apple IIs to produce
copy protection, or crack it, or just to look at the raw data, follow
the decoding instructions, to manually work out the result, to see why a
sector on the disk was bad and not reading correctly. Oops.. Turns out a
human "can" follow machine instructions, not just the machine.
No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases
has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the
"definition" of patent, and why it can't apply, and instead dealt solely
with ownership, uniqueness, and whines about "stifling innovation",
which it turns out is statistically worse when they are imposed in this
case.
--
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:
> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
> software that isn't technically a set of instructions, which, in
> principle, a human could not reproduce themselves, if they had some
> means to access the same data, and some means to produce the same
> results on a computer screen. Can't? Well, then, software patents are
> not legal at all, since you can't patent such "instruction sets", as
> defined by the laws set up to define what you *can* patent. The problem
> is, no one mentions this niggling little detail, or makes sure the
> people in the court, like the judge, knows that software "is" such a
> thing. One side argues its not, but never manages to say why, the other
> side argues it is, and babbles about unique, protecting IP, etc., and
> the courts go by what they know, which is, "Someone wrote the thing, and
> its all incomprehensible to me, so sounds like a machine, not
> instructions."
Isn't *everything* reducible to a "set of instructions"?
--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
People don't patent software.
Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executable
by a computing system to ....
You really need to understand that the details matter.
> No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases
> has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the
> "definition" of patent,
Yeah. The entire legal system involved with patents has no idea what they're
doing and can't even read the statutes or the patents themselves.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> If patents on prior art can be granted if the patent does some tiny
> detail differently and originally, wouldn't that mean that, conversely,
> you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
> being different from the patent description?
There's two bits.
If I patent (say) black and white TV, you can patent how to send color over
the airwaves in a way that a B&W TV will get the right picture too.
However, I can't manufacture my color TVs without licensing the B&W patents,
and you can't sell a color TV doing it my way without paying both licenses.
In other words, I can patent a device that does A&B&C. You patent a device
that does A&B&C&D. Anyone that does A&B&C infringes my patent, and if it
also does D it *also* infringes your patent. But the patent on A&B&C&D is
still a valid patent. Someone doing A&B&C&E does not infringe your patent
but it infringes mine. Someone that does A&B&X doesn't infringe either patent.
> The latter would make patents basically useless, but that means that
> patents should not be granted on prior art simply because the patent has
> a minor difference compared to all existing usage.
The argument in the above case would be whether my patent already covers "D"
in your patent. Just because I have a patent doesn't permit me to
manufacture devices covered by that patent. I have to license all the other
patents that also cover the device.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jeremy "UncleHoot" Praay wrote:
> Wouldn't it be wonderful if the SCOTUS shot them all down?
While this is true, there is a handful of "software patents" that seem to be
a good idea. public key encryption leaps to mind, altho I suppose you could
argue that would have come out in public anyway.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> you don't infringe the patent if you implement it with some tiny detail
> being different from the patent description?
To answer this precisely, yes, that's correct. You look at each claim, each
of which is a single sentence. Each sentence is broken up by semicolons.
Each clause has to be done by your machine in order for it to be violating
the claim.
So if I have a claim that says
Claim 1: A machine that manufactures eyebolts; said machine powered by
compressed air; with a two-prong mechanism that curls steel; and a die that
cuts threads.
then you don't violate if you don't make eyebolts, you're not powered by
compressed air, you don't have two prongs on the mechanism or it doesn't
curl steel, or if you don't have a die that cuts threads.
If your mechanism has three prongs, then you're not violating my patent.
That's why people griping about "sudo did that a decade ago" or "they're
patenting peanut butter jelly sandwiches" make themselves sound foolish to
anyone who actually knows how the system works. IANAL.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions, which, in
>> principle, a human could not reproduce themselves, if they had some
>> means to access the same data, and some means to produce the same
>> results on a computer screen. Can't? Well, then, software patents are
>> not legal at all, since you can't patent such "instruction sets", as
>> defined by the laws set up to define what you *can* patent. The
>> problem is, no one mentions this niggling little detail, or makes sure
>> the people in the court, like the judge, knows that software "is" such
>> a thing. One side argues its not, but never manages to say why, the
>> other side argues it is, and babbles about unique, protecting IP,
>> etc., and the courts go by what they know, which is, "Someone wrote
>> the thing, and its all incomprehensible to me, so sounds like a
>> machine, not instructions."
>
> Isn't *everything* reducible to a "set of instructions"?
>
> --
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Uh.. Please describe to me the "instructions" for *being* a shovel.
Making one, sure, but that isn't a "patent", only the final product is.
The act of using the shovel could be, but again, you can't use something
without having it first. In any case, I am not stating some vague
opinion on the matter. The actual, specific, legal definitions of
patents exclude "sets of instructions that a person can follow for get a
specific result". You can't patent mathematical formula, for example,
and the reason you can't is because they fall under that specific rule.
You can't patent the *process* used to build something, you can
trademark it, copyright it, if in written form, but only the *product*
of those steps is patentable, *not* the process used to get to it.
Software is, at a basic level, all math, and on a more general level,
its like the instruction manual used to tell you how to "build" a
cabinet, not the cabinet itself. The former is not patentable, the later is.
--
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:
>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
>
> People don't patent software.
>
> Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions
> executable by a computing system to ....
>
> You really need to understand that the details matter.
>
Snort. Give me a break. There is a difference between something that
tells someone/something how to do something, and something that "does
it", by design. Details don't matter, if its the former. Why? Because
you are not patenting a specific implementation, you are patenting
"formula", which isn't allowed. You can trademark it, copyright it,
etc., but technically, since it can, in principle, be "run" by a human,
silly BS like adding, "When loaded into X machine, with Y device.",
doesn't change the nature of the situation. Its like trying to claim
that you are taking about a unique "machine", if an accountant, wearing
a paisley tie, while standing on one foot, is the person you intend to
program your VCR, therefor someone else's Aunt is in violation of patent
if "she" tries to follow the same set of instructions.
Fine, you want to patent some combination of watsits, leave out the
software, which is "instructions", and see what the people holding the
patents on the "hardware" say about your patenting the "combination" of
their products. Stuffing code on it doesn't make it "new", or make the
code something other than code.
>> No, we have this problem because, it seems, everyone arguing the cases
>> has either ignored, glossed over, or blindingly failed to address, the
>> "definition" of patent,
>
> Yeah. The entire legal system involved with patents has no idea what
> they're doing and can't even read the statutes or the patents themselves.
>
How many cases have actually made the argument for why software isn't a
*unique machine*, or causes something to *become one*, based on an
explanation of them as "instructions"? The point made by the article I
linked to is, "Not many, if any." And, if it was so *certain*, why would
anyone be reviewing their validity?
In any case, I don't personally find the, "I wrote a set of instructions
on how to do X, so now X is a new thing.", argument even remotely
persuasive myself, and all the fancy, "Well, I am not patenting X, I am
patenting Y, Z, Q and P, which are all patented by someone else, when
used with X.", language I find even more silly. Either software is a
thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we have a serious problem.
If its the former, then you don't need all the fancy loopholes and
absurd arguments about all the widgets you attached to it, to argue that
it isn't. The only reason to have to be that obtuse is if the central
premise is invalid to start with, and you damn well know 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> This having a large bucket of your own
> patents provides sort of a "mutually assured destruction" scenario where
> one company can't attempt to sue another for patent infringement without
> suffering a massive counter-suit.
But that's MAD!
(Sorry, couldn't resist...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Making one, sure, but that isn't a "patent", only the final product is.
I don't believe that's true. Certainly you can patent a new process to build
the same thing cheaper.
Do you have a credible citation for this?
--
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:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Not broken, invalid as a concept. Please describe to me *anything* in
>>> software that isn't technically a set of instructions,
>>
>> People don't patent software.
>>
>> Claim 16: A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions
>> executable by a computing system to ....
>>
>> You really need to understand that the details matter.
>>
> Snort. Give me a break.
It's not me. I'm not the one saying it's a meaningful distinction.
Are you arguing what should be, or what is?
> Details don't matter, if its the former. Why? Because
> you are not patenting a specific implementation, you are patenting
> "formula", which isn't allowed.
Yes. You're patenting a specific implementation of preparing those
spark-lines, in particular, one which is run from a computer-readable medium.
> You can trademark it, copyright it,
> etc., but technically, since it can, in principle, be "run" by a human,
> silly BS like adding, "When loaded into X machine, with Y device.",
> doesn't change the nature of the situation.
I beg to differ. Unless, if course, you're arguing how it should be, rather
than how it is, in which case there isn't a lot of point in discussing things.
> How many cases have actually made the argument for why software isn't a
> *unique machine*, or causes something to *become one*, based on an
> explanation of them as "instructions"? The point made by the article I
> linked to is, "Not many, if any." And, if it was so *certain*, why would
> anyone be reviewing their validity?
Because the rules on what you can patent are being changed.
> In any case, I don't personally find the, "I wrote a set of instructions
> on how to do X, so now X is a new thing.", argument even remotely
> persuasive myself,
Since you're not a patent judge, that doesn't really matter much.
> Either software is a
> thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we have a serious problem.
I'm saying that people don't patent software. They patent hardware that's
running that software. You may argue that it doesn't make any difference,
but that factually isn't the case, or nobody would be trying to change that
via the courts right now.
> The only reason to have to be that obtuse is if the central
> premise is invalid to start with, and you damn well know it.
Again, are you arguing "is" or are you arguing "should be"? Because right
now the Supreme Court is trying to decide what "is", so if you're arguing
"is", I'd have to say you're full of it, as the Supreme Court doesn't even
know the answer. If you're arguing "should be", then I'll ignore you since
your opinion isn't relevant to the discussion of what actually is. :-)
--
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:
>> Making one, sure, but that isn't a "patent", only the final product is.
>
> I don't believe that's true. Certainly you can patent a new process to
> build the same thing cheaper.
>
> Do you have a credible citation for this?
>
Hmm. Ok. Processes are included, it seems, but that doesn't alter the
fact that some very precise exclusions where added when defining what is
patentable, and software is a bloody close fit to that. The argument is
that software is a description of abstractions in a lot of cases. I.e.,
the math the guy used on paper to describe the means to map something to
a 3D point in space is "not" fundamentally different than the code used
to do the same thing. So, you can't patent the process of calculating
such a point, though you might the specific "way" you do it. Problem
with a lot of patents has been that they cross that line by a wide
fracking margin, attempting to patent, as in one person's example, the
process of making bolts, not the *specific* bolt in question.
--
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:
>> Either software is a thing, or its instructions. If its the later, we
>> have a serious problem.
>
> I'm saying that people don't patent software. They patent hardware
> that's running that software. You may argue that it doesn't make any
> difference, but that factually isn't the case, or nobody would be trying
> to change that via the courts right now.
>
Show me how many patents MS holds that talk about the hardware, and not
software, then explain to me how its not patenting software itself. You
are wrong about that. And the arguments being made are not "if they
should" allow patents on software itself, but whether or not they
**should have** in the first place in a **lot** of cases. On rethinking,
there may be some cases where its damn fuzzy and might be reasonable,
but there are two arguments against it, one being that even the
industry, including, in some cases, the patent holders, find it
*detracting* from the purpose of promoting innovation, and it is so damn
fuzzy that avoiding crossing the line might not be even feasible.
--
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:
> Hmm. Ok. Processes are included, it seems, but that doesn't alter the
> fact that some very precise exclusions where added when defining what is
> patentable, and software is a bloody close fit to that.
But clearly not close enough to have made it unpatentable. :-)
When we talk about this, let's talk about *good* software patents, not
crappy ones. Ones where experts had spent years trying to come up with the
solution, and the software solution found astounded the experts. Something
like public key encryption, for example, which many people (at least outside
the NSA) didn't even consider to be possible, let alone how to do it.
Of course there's a lot of crappy software patents, but there's a lot of
crappy every kind of patent.
> The argument is
> that software is a description of abstractions in a lot of cases.
In many, yes. But that's true of patents like the Segway patent as well.
> the math the guy used on paper to describe the means to map something to
> a 3D point in space is "not" fundamentally different than the code used
> to do the same thing. So, you can't patent the process of calculating
> such a point, though you might the specific "way" you do it.
Right. That would be patenting the mathematics.
But the DH patent didn't patent modular roots. It patented using modular
roots in order to do public key cryptography.
> Problem
> with a lot of patents has been that they cross that line by a wide
> fracking margin, attempting to patent, as in one person's example, the
> process of making bolts, not the *specific* bolt in question.
Certianly. But that hasn't anything to do with whether it's a patent on
software or hardware. You know what the segway patent covers?
A vehicle with two wheels on the same axis with a passenger having a center
of gravity above the height of the axel.
There's no diagrams of how it goes, how it balances, etc. Basically, nothing
you can't learn by watching a 10-second clip of someone riding past on a
segway. That's a crappy patent too. That doesn't mean vehicles shouldn't get
patent protection. It means the patent should disclose how to go about
making it happen in a novel way.
--
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:
> Show me how many patents MS holds that talk about the hardware, and not
> software, then explain to me how its not patenting software itself.
I quoted you one. Show me one that actually claims to patent the software.
> You are wrong about that.
Show me one patent that *says* they're patenting the software, and not the
computer executing the software or a piece of hardware storing the software,
or describing it as an abstract "process for blah implemented via a computer".
I have looked at hundreds of software patents, many professionally, and not
one I have seen has ever claimed to patent software.
> And the arguments being made
I'm not asking what the "arguments being made" are. I'm asking whether it's
*you* making the arguments, or someone else. In either case, I don't care
to debate the matter of "should" or "should not".
Obviously they *did* allow patents on lots of software. Obviously they're
now rethinking on whether that's reasonable, and if not, how to exclude
software.
Let's say you have an industrial process. In theory, a human could indeed
control that with a pencil and paper except for being so slow the chemicals
or whatever would all congeal by the time he decided whether to cook it any
longer. So you need something to compute how the machine works. Does that
make the machine non-patentable? How much of the machine can you take away
before the machine can no longer be patented? That's basically the problem.
--
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:
> There's no diagrams of how it goes, how it balances, etc. Basically,
> nothing you can't learn by watching a 10-second clip of someone riding
> past on a segway. That's a crappy patent too. That doesn't mean vehicles
> shouldn't get patent protection. It means the patent should disclose how
> to go about making it happen in a novel way.
>
You keep persisting in missing the point of what I am talking about, and
trying to equate instructions on "how" to do something, with
descriptions of "what" something is, or what it actually is. Until you
stop trying to equate the two, there is no point in arguing over why
software is the former, and not the later.
--
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:
> Let's say you have an industrial process. In theory, a human could
> indeed control that with a pencil and paper except for being so slow the
> chemicals or whatever would all congeal by the time he decided whether
> to cook it any longer. So you need something to compute how the machine
> works. Does that make the machine non-patentable? How much of the
> machine can you take away before the machine can no longer be patented?
> That's basically the problem.
>
Please.. Please! Stop confusing the instructions that tell the machine
what to do with the bloody machine. They are not the same thing. Of
course the machine is. The question isn't if the machine is, its whether
its "sufficient" to claim that stuffing the instructions the human would
use into the machine somehow *turns* those instructions into *part* of
the machine, or whether or not it makes any damn sense to claim that
this "improved" the machine, given that the machine was perfectly
capable of doing it without them, it just **didn't know how**, just the
the human wouldn't, without instructions either (note, the original
premise assumes a human that can understand and follow any instructions
you might give them, not one prone to *make up* steps on their own, or
already knows how to get the result, so its the same thing as a machine
that has the *capacity* to do X, but doesn't know, without instructions
to follow, how to *do* X).
--
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:
> stop trying to equate the two, there is no point in arguing over why
> software is the former, and not the later.
You seem to think that I don't understand software is instructions. What
*you* don't seem to have done is read any patent claims on the matter.
People don't patent software. Until you understand why I say that, you're
not going to understand what the supreme court case is discussing.
--
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:
>> Let's say you have an industrial process. In theory, a human could
>> indeed control that with a pencil and paper except for being so slow
>> the chemicals or whatever would all congeal by the time he decided
>> whether to cook it any longer. So you need something to compute how
>> the machine works. Does that make the machine non-patentable? How much
>> of the machine can you take away before the machine can no longer be
>> patented? That's basically the problem.
>>
> Please.. Please! Stop confusing the instructions that tell the machine
> what to do with the bloody machine. They are not the same thing.
I know that. OK, I give up, since you're apparently so worked up about this
you're not even reading.
> or whether or not it makes any damn sense to claim that
> this "improved" the machine, given that the machine was perfectly
> capable of doing it without them, it just **didn't know how**,
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This pile of pots and pans and
chemicals *could* cure cancer. They just *didn't know how*. Hence, the
instructions for making a drug that cures cancer shouldn't be patentable, right?
--
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:
>>> Let's say you have an industrial process. In theory, a human could
>>> indeed control that with a pencil and paper except for being so slow
>>> the chemicals or whatever would all congeal by the time he decided
>>> whether to cook it any longer. So you need something to compute how
>>> the machine works. Does that make the machine non-patentable? How
>>> much of the machine can you take away before the machine can no
>>> longer be patented? That's basically the problem.
>>>
>> Please.. Please! Stop confusing the instructions that tell the machine
>> what to do with the bloody machine. They are not the same thing.
>
> I know that. OK, I give up, since you're apparently so worked up about
> this you're not even reading.
>
>> or whether or not it makes any damn sense to claim that this
>> "improved" the machine, given that the machine was perfectly capable
>> of doing it without them, it just **didn't know how**,
>
> That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. This pile of pots and pans and
> chemicals *could* cure cancer. They just *didn't know how*. Hence, the
> instructions for making a drug that cures cancer shouldn't be
> patentable, right?
>
Erk.. Oh, yes, and everyone knows that a pile of pots, pans and
chemicals are a) able to, or b) designed to, follow sets of general
instructions. I give up....
--
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:
> Erk.. Oh, yes, and everyone knows that a pile of pots, pans and
> chemicals are a) able to, or b) designed to, follow sets of general
> instructions. I give up....
They certainly are. You insist on looking at legal problems from the point
of view of abstract computer science. Nobody is patenting abstract computer
science.
--
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:
>> Erk.. Oh, yes, and everyone knows that a pile of pots, pans and
>> chemicals are a) able to, or b) designed to, follow sets of general
>> instructions. I give up....
>
> They certainly are. You insist on looking at legal problems from the
> point of view of abstract computer science. Nobody is patenting abstract
> computer science.
>
No, they are just redefining what **is** abstraction as *not
abstracted*, so they can say its not the same thing. Kind of like what
the Catholics did with Capabara to redefine them as fish, so they could
get around eating them on holy days. It doesn't impress me, but it
certainly does impress someone whose area of expertise is the patenting
of discrete machines, but ***not*** computers.
--
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:
> No, they are just redefining what **is** abstraction as *not
> abstracted*, so they can say its not the same thing.
No, they're really not. I'm sorry if you don't follow the logic, but I
don't think I can explain it to you any more clearly.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
