 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, again, Wikipedia asserts that the entire thing was done using 100%
> clean-room development,
Huh. Interesting. It's odd how they managed to get every little look pretty
much exact.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Well, again, Wikipedia asserts that the entire thing was done using
>> 100% clean-room development,
>
> Huh. Interesting. It's odd how they managed to get every little look
> pretty much exact.
Well, if you get somebody to disassemble the code, write down the
*exact* rendering parameters, and then give just the parameters to the
guy who writes the new code, then you have "clean-room development", yet
it looks pretty identical.
But take a closer look: Notepad has a line/column count. The command
prompt has a different aspect ratio. A lot of icons are completely
different. And so on. (And let's not forget, a lot of the very basic
Windows stuff uses quite simple layouts, probably thrown together quite
quickly.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/22/2010 11:18 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:16:53 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> did
> spake thusly:
>
>> Check out the shutdown message. What's with that?
>
> They Live!
>
I recall a similar quote from Duke Nukem 3D.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/22/2010 1:12 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> All of which is of course completely irrelevant, since every single tiny
> aspect of all M$ products are covered by 80,000,000 patents, so if this
> product ever starts actually working properly, the developers will still
> be sued off the face of the Earth.
How long do software patents last? I would guess that in the same amount
of time hardware and virtualization speeds would have increased so much
that you might as well just run the *actual* OS in VMWare or whatever.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2010 8:56 AM, Kyle wrote:
> On 6/22/2010 11:18 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> And lo On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:16:53 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
>> spake thusly:
>>
>>> Check out the shutdown message. What's with that?
>>
>> They Live!
>>
>
> I recall a similar quote from Duke Nukem 3D.
Yep, it's Dike Nukem.
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2010 10:19 AM, SharkD wrote:
> On 6/22/2010 1:12 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> All of which is of course completely irrelevant, since every single tiny
>> aspect of all M$ products are covered by 80,000,000 patents, so if this
>> product ever starts actually working properly, the developers will still
>> be sued off the face of the Earth.
>
>
> How long do software patents last? I would guess that in the same amount
> of time hardware and virtualization speeds would have increased so much
> that you might as well just run the *actual* OS in VMWare or whatever.
>
lol More like, for so long, at this point, that you could build a VMWare
version that "mimics" 4 core processors, while running it on 64 cores,
while using only 2GB or the 16TB of memory available to your 5 year old
computer system. The patent system is that screwed up, from what I have
seen.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2010 1:43 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> lol More like, for so long, at this point, that you could build a VMWare
> version that "mimics" 4 core processors, while running it on 64 cores,
> while using only 2GB or the 16TB of memory available to your 5 year old
> computer system. The patent system is that screwed up, from what I have
> seen.
>
That sounds like way too many cores. AFAIK multi-core CPUs are just a
temporary "hack" to resolve heat issues. There's only so much room on a
motherboard, and with 64 cores you may run out!
--
http://isometricland.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, again, Wikipedia asserts that the entire thing was done using 100%
>> clean-room development,
>
> Huh. Interesting. It's odd how they managed to get every little look
> pretty much exact.
What looks exactly?
Note that the GUI widgets are probably all rendered by Wine code...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> All of which is of course completely irrelevant, since every single tiny
>> aspect of all M$ products are covered by 80,000,000 patents, so if this
>> product ever starts actually working properly, the developers will still
>> be sued off the face of the Earth.
>
> How long do software patents last? I would guess that in the same amount
> of time hardware and virtualization speeds would have increased so much
> that you might as well just run the *actual* OS in VMWare or whatever.
The problem isn't technology, it's law. ReactOS exists so you can run
Windows software without actually paying for Windows. (Of course, as I
pointed out, this doesn't actually work yet.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 13:19:24 -0400, SharkD wrote:
> How long do software patents last?
I don't know, but I know a guy who just received one that the application
went in *8* years ago for.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:22:31 +0100, SharkD
<pos### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:
> On 6/23/2010 8:56 AM, Kyle wrote:
>> On 6/22/2010 11:18 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>>> And lo On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:16:53 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull>
>>> did
>>> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>> Check out the shutdown message. What's with that?
>>>
>>> They Live!
>>>
>>
>> I recall a similar quote from Duke Nukem 3D.
>
> Yep, it's Dike Nukem.
Close, the quote from DN is "It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum...
and I'm all outta gum." The original They Live is a more formal "I have
come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass... and I'm all out of bubblegum"
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> For those of you that don't know, there's a thing called ReactOS. It's a
> free operating system which is supposed to be binary-compatible with
> Microsoft Windows XP. (Despite the small and obvious problem that this
> _should_ be 100% illegal.)
Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
It's not much different from making an emulator, and those aren't illegal.
It would be illegal for them to lift binaries (eg. system libraries) from
Windows XP and distributing them alongside their own OS, but it's perfectly
legal for them to build their own versions of those binaries.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> For those of you that don't know, there's a thing called ReactOS. It's a
>> free operating system which is supposed to be binary-compatible with
>> Microsoft Windows XP. (Despite the small and obvious problem that this
>> _should_ be 100% illegal.)
>
> Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
> would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
> It's not much different from making an emulator, and those aren't illegal.
>
> It would be illegal for them to lift binaries (eg. system libraries) from
> Windows XP and distributing them alongside their own OS, but it's perfectly
> legal for them to build their own versions of those binaries.
I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
DirectX is patented, and therefore you can't write a library that has
the same API (i.e., the same functions with the same names and
signatures that do the same thing).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You *can* do stuff with it, but it's very unreliable.
Sounds like perfect Windows emulation to me!
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> For those of you that don't know, there's a thing called ReactOS. It's a
>> free operating system which is supposed to be binary-compatible with
>> Microsoft Windows XP. (Despite the small and obvious problem that this
>> _should_ be 100% illegal.)
>
> Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
> would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
> It's not much different from making an emulator, and those aren't illegal.
>
> It would be illegal for them to lift binaries (eg. system libraries) from
> Windows XP and distributing them alongside their own OS, but it's perfectly
> legal for them to build their own versions of those binaries.
There may be a term in the EULA which prohibits reverse engineering. It
does not strike me as terribly likely that someone managed to write a
Windows OS clone without doing that.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You *can* do stuff with it, but it's very unreliable.
>
> Sounds like perfect Windows emulation to me!
Heheh. What, you mean like this?
http://www.slimeland.com/winsim/
I would say, Win 3.x was quite reliable (then again, it doesn't *do*
anything), Win 9x was fairly unstable, Win NT was much better, Win XP
was initially hopeless, and now Win XP has got to the point where it
usually works just fine. Certinaly it doesn't crash just because you
open Notepad; ReactOS does. Like, in ReactOS, you can just open an
Explorer window, click on a few things, and then you notice that the
mouse has stopped moving and the system is using 100% CPU, and the
keyboard isn't responding, and...
I haven't seen the Blue Screen of Death from ReactOS yet. Maybe they
haven't implemented that part?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> There may be a term in the EULA which prohibits reverse engineering. It
> does not strike me as terribly likely that someone managed to write a
> Windows OS clone without doing that.
Depends on what you count as "reverse engineering". If you just mean
"disassembly", then I'd say you probably can write something functional
just by reading the API documentation and running tests to see how the
M$ implementation behaves in various situations. If you count "running
tests to see how the M$ implementation behaves" as reverse engineering
then no, not really...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
> DirectX is patented, and therefore you can't write a library that has
> the same API (i.e., the same functions with the same names and
> signatures that do the same thing).
Patents are not international. US patents are not recognized here (and
vice-versa, of course).
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
>> DirectX is patented, and therefore you can't write a library that has
>> the same API (i.e., the same functions with the same names and
>> signatures that do the same thing).
>
> Patents are not international. US patents are not recognized here (and
> vice-versa, of course).
OK. But what's to say that M$ haven't patented the same thing in every
single duristiction that they operate in?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
> would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
It would probably be the "look and feel" lawsuits, even ignoring the patent
problems.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
John VanSickle wrote:
> There may be a term in the EULA which prohibits reverse engineering.
... which *used* to be unenforceable in the US, since copyright law is
federal and allows reverse engineering, while EULAs are contract law which
is state law.
The DMCA and all that probably changed this in the 30+ years since I learned
that, tho.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> OK. But what's to say that M$ haven't patented the same thing in every
> single duristiction that they operate in?
The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU doesn't
acknowledge software patents.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
> > would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
> It would probably be the "look and feel" lawsuits, even ignoring the patent
> problems.
I have hard time believing that trade dress laws apply to basic computer
user interfaces. Else Microsoft could sue the creators of KDE and Gnome for
copying their windowing ideas (not to talk that Apple could probably sue
Microsoft for the same thing, as windowing was probably implemented in Apple
computers before Windows)l
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
>>> would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
>
>> It would probably be the "look and feel" lawsuits, even ignoring the patent
>> problems.
>
> I have hard time believing that trade dress laws apply to basic computer
> user interfaces.
It's copyright law here. Basically, the original lawsuit was over greeting
cards. One company hired people to think up and design greeting cards. At
another company, the CEO would go into stores and buy up competitor cards he
liked, then give them to his workers who would draw new pictures but give
the same basic "look and feel" to the cards. One example was a card with a
cute little girl in a sun dress and bonnet, and inside it said "I wuv you."
The competitor drew it with a pink background instead of blue, put a
teddy-bear instead of a girl, and put the same text inside. So the artwork
was all original, and the text wasn't copyrightable, but the overall
look-and-feel was (for better or worse) judged to be subject to copyright.
It's nothing to do with "trade dress", which is more like trademarks than
copyright. Microsoft wasn't making any products that could be confused with
Apple's products, which is what trademark is about.
> (not to talk that Apple could probably sue
> Microsoft for the same thing,
Indeed, Apple is the one that started applying "look-and-feel" to Microsoft
in a lawsuit over the UI.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
Unfortunately, the "look-and-feel" argument has been applied so much to
software that I can't easily track down the original lawsuit over greeting
cards that set off the whole "look-and-feel is subject to copyright even if
all the actual text and artwork is new" stuff. Altho I did find one
reference that greeting cards are the *second* most litigated look-and-feel
suit. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/23/2010 12:09 PM, SharkD wrote:
> On 6/23/2010 1:43 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> lol More like, for so long, at this point, that you could build a VMWare
>> version that "mimics" 4 core processors, while running it on 64 cores,
>> while using only 2GB or the 16TB of memory available to your 5 year old
>> computer system. The patent system is that screwed up, from what I have
>> seen.
>>
>
> That sounds like way too many cores. AFAIK multi-core CPUs are just a
> temporary "hack" to resolve heat issues. There's only so much room on a
> motherboard, and with 64 cores you may run out!
>
Intel already has a 32 core system. They have given test models out to
various experts, to do their debugging/testing for them, to see how well
they work. Note, this isn't 32 cores on X chips. Its 32 cores on **one**
chip, so the issue is how much you can cram on the chip, not how much
room there is on the MB.
--
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:
> Intel already has a 32 core system.
It also depends what you want the "core" to do. A 32-core x86 processor?
Awesome. A 32-core FORTH processor? Yawn.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 4:28 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> For those of you that don't know, there's a thing called ReactOS.
>>> It's a free operating system which is supposed to be
>>> binary-compatible with Microsoft Windows XP. (Despite the small and
>>> obvious problem that this _should_ be 100% illegal.)
>>
>> Why would it be illegal? There's no law in any country I know of which
>> would forbid building a system which is capable of running an program.
>> It's not much different from making an emulator, and those aren't
>> illegal.
>>
>> It would be illegal for them to lift binaries (eg. system libraries) from
>> Windows XP and distributing them alongside their own OS, but it's
>> perfectly
>> legal for them to build their own versions of those binaries.
>
> I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
> DirectX is patented, and therefore you can't write a library that has
> the same API (i.e., the same functions with the same names and
> signatures that do the same thing).
Actually.. No. An API is an "interface". The underlying way that it goes
from, "I gave it this data", to, "It gave me this result", is what is
patented, not the API itself. Otherwise emulating **anything**,
including the BIOS, which you need to do things like DOSBox, would be
illegal too.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Intel already has a 32 core system.
>
> It also depends what you want the "core" to do. A 32-core x86 processor?
> Awesome. A 32-core FORTH processor? Yawn.
I have a processor with 192 cores, capable of generating about 700
GFLOPS of compute power. And it's not even an expensive research
prototype. It's an off-the-shelf component. It's called a GPU. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK. But what's to say that M$ haven't patented the same thing in every
>> single duristiction that they operate in?
>
> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU doesn't
> acknowledge software patents.
Oh, right. I didn't know that.
Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or just
that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
>> DirectX is patented.
> Actually.. No. An API is an "interface". The underlying way that it goes
> from, "I gave it this data", to, "It gave me this result", is what is
> patented, not the API itself.
Really? Interesting. What underlies the API calls is obviously subject
to _copyright_ protection, but I didn't think you could _patent_
executable code. However, I thought that you *can* patent an API.
> Otherwise emulating **anything**,
> including the BIOS, which you need to do things like DOSBox, would be
> illegal too.
Only illegal if the BIOS interface is patented. (AFAIK, it isn't.) The
actual BIOS code in any given motherboard has copyright protection
[usually], but then it only works with one given motherboard anyway...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> is what is patented, not the API itself.
Really, it depends what's in the patent.
For example, if you patent aspects of the MP3 data stream format, then any
API that accepts an MP3 data stream as input or generates it as output would
not be implementable without licensing the patent.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> (not to talk that Apple could probably sue
>> Microsoft for the same thing,
Um... they did?
> Indeed, Apple is the one that started applying "look-and-feel" to
> Microsoft in a lawsuit over the UI.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation
Oh thank god... It's nice to know my memory isn't *completely* defective!
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I haven't seen the Blue Screen of Death from ReactOS yet. Maybe they
> haven't implemented that part?
Maybe they did, but it's so buggy that it always fails.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU
>> doesn't
>> acknowledge software patents.
>
> Oh, right. I didn't know that.
>
> Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or just
> that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the money
trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to do this.
*But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made, then
the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine, or
a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle, so
probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in court.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU
>>> doesn't
>>> acknowledge software patents.
>>
>> Oh, right. I didn't know that.
>>
>> Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or
>> just that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
>
> If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
> application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the
> money trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to do
> this.
>
> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made,
> then the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
> processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine,
> or a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
>
> As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle, so
> probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in court.
Right. So as long as M$ describes the DirectX API as "a system for
allowing cool programs to run on our OS and nobody else's", they can
patent it. And then sue ReactOS for implementing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
>> application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the money
>> trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to do this.
>>
>> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made,
>> then the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
>> processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine,
>> or a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
>>
>> As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle, so
>> probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in court.
>
> Right. So as long as M$ describes the DirectX API as "a system for
> allowing cool programs to run on our OS and nobody else's", they can
> patent it.
Not in the EU they can't, because it does not apply to some physical object
that can only be made utilising this patent. At a stretch they might be
able to get away with some GUI concept applied to a mobile device they were
manufacturing, but it's going to have to be quite a high level concept (eg a
novel way to select images from a database using a touch screen) rather than
an API.
> And then sue ReactOS for implementing it.
There is no way to successfully sue anyone in the EU for patent infringement
if you're not dealing with anything physical.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:01:40 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did
spake thusly:
<snip>
> There is no way to successfully sue anyone in the EU for patent
> infringement if you're not dealing with anything physical.
However that's just patents there are also trademarks which enforce the
'style' of something and that doesn't just apply to the physical. As for
whether that or even overseas patents are enforceable you have to look out
for TRIPs. In theory TRIPs allows non-physical patents and therefore any
signatory to TRIPs has to uphold them.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 9:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> You *can* do stuff with it, but it's very unreliable.
>>
>> Sounds like perfect Windows emulation to me!
>
> Heheh. What, you mean like this?
>
> http://www.slimeland.com/winsim/
>
> I would say, Win 3.x was quite reliable (then again, it doesn't *do*
Windows 3.x was stable? LMAO ... back then I only used windows when I
absolutely had to. Very crash prone.
> anything), Win 9x was fairly unstable, Win NT was much better, Win XP
9x was better than 3.x, NT was definitely much more stable.
> was initially hopeless, and now Win XP has got to the point where it
> usually works just fine. Certinaly it doesn't crash just because you
Yep. I haven't had much problem with Windows 7 actually. Occasionally
there's some 64 bit awkwardness (64bit apps being able to allocate way
more memory that physically available causes trouble), but well, I chose
to install 64 bit.
> open Notepad; ReactOS does. Like, in ReactOS, you can just open an
> Explorer window, click on a few things, and then you notice that the
> mouse has stopped moving and the system is using 100% CPU, and the
> keyboard isn't responding, and...
>
> I haven't seen the Blue Screen of Death from ReactOS yet. Maybe they
> haven't implemented that part?
Nah, it just goes into in infinite loop before it ever gets there
(apparently, based on your description)
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made, then
> the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
> processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine, or
> a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
AFAIK even then it applies only to the device in question.
For example, a company could patent, let's say, a scanning device which
scans a barcode and tells what numeric code it corresponds to. The algorithm
which recognizes the barcode from the rest of the image and interprets its
meaning can be part of the device patent.
However, someone could implement the exact same algorithm on a PC so that
it would recognize barcodes from JPEG images and then distribute that program,
and it would be fine because it's not anymore related to the scanning device.
This person is not building the scanning *device* and distributing it, only
a program.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> The fact that software cannot be patented in most countries. The EU
>>> doesn't
>>> acknowledge software patents.
>>
>> Oh, right. I didn't know that.
>>
>> Does this mean that software patents actually don't get granted? Or
>> just that hypothetically you could go to court to have them revoked?
>
> If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
> application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the
> money trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to do
> this.
>
> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made,
> then the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
> processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine,
> or a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
>
> As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle, so
> probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in court.
That's the same rules we have here in the USA.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> However that's just patents there are also trademarks which enforce the
> 'style' of something and that doesn't just apply to the physical.
The USA also has what's called "design patents". For example, if you invent
a novel way of carving glass or polishing paint or something, you can patent
it as a "design patent" and keep someone else from using it. (That's all
I've seen it applied to personally, but I suspect the intention was to allow
you to patent for example a phone where the keyboard slides open in two
different directions or something, regardless of how you mechanically
realized it.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Yep. I haven't had much problem with Windows 7 actually.
... yet.
I have decided that whenever MS comes out with a new OS, I'm going to stop
applying anything but the most vital patches to the old OS. I think my Vista
has gotten way, way flakier in the last three months than in the 18 or more
months or so before that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Eiffel - The language that lets you specify exactly
that the code does what you think it does, even if
it doesn't do what you wanted.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 12:53 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Intel already has a 32 core system.
>>
>> It also depends what you want the "core" to do. A 32-core x86
>> processor? Awesome. A 32-core FORTH processor? Yawn.
>
> I have a processor with 192 cores, capable of generating about 700
> GFLOPS of compute power. And it's not even an expensive research
> prototype. It's an off-the-shelf component. It's called a GPU. ;-)
>
Ah well, yeah. lol The one they are testing though *is* an x86 type.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 1:01 AM, scott wrote:
>>> If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
>>> application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the
>>> money trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to
>>> do this.
>>>
>>> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be
>>> made, then the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a
>>> novel image processing algorithm for improving display quality on a
>>> display is fine, or a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
>>>
>>> As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle,
>>> so probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in
>>> court.
>>
>> Right. So as long as M$ describes the DirectX API as "a system for
>> allowing cool programs to run on our OS and nobody else's", they can
>> patent it.
>
> Not in the EU they can't, because it does not apply to some physical
> object that can only be made utilising this patent. At a stretch they
> might be able to get away with some GUI concept applied to a mobile
> device they were manufacturing, but it's going to have to be quite a
> high level concept (eg a novel way to select images from a database
> using a touch screen) rather than an API.
>
>> And then sue ReactOS for implementing it.
>
> There is no way to successfully sue anyone in the EU for patent
> infringement if you're not dealing with anything physical.
>
That would be "yet". Sadly, the US companies keep pushing for adoption
of our stupid ideas on the subject. They figure, "Why rule the US and
bankrupt/undermine anyone with new (or just improved) ideas, when you
can rule the world, and do the same to everyone else."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 7:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> scott<sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
>> *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made, then
>> the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
>> processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine, or
>> a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
>
> AFAIK even then it applies only to the device in question.
>
> For example, a company could patent, let's say, a scanning device which
> scans a barcode and tells what numeric code it corresponds to. The algorithm
> which recognizes the barcode from the rest of the image and interprets its
> meaning can be part of the device patent.
>
> However, someone could implement the exact same algorithm on a PC so that
> it would recognize barcodes from JPEG images and then distribute that program,
> and it would be fine because it's not anymore related to the scanning device.
> This person is not building the scanning *device* and distributing it, only
> a program.
>
The problem here is that it all depends on the "breadth" of the
language. Someone a while back got sued, and lost, over a patent that
covered imprinting music data onto media, via a kiosk. The patent they
used to sue... was originally based on punching holes in paper scrolls,
to be fed into player pianos. The people successfully sued over it -
"Buy the music you want, per song, and have our kiosk burn those chosen
songs to a CD for you."
That is the problem in a nutshell. Patents, under the current bunch of
a) judges, b) patent lawyers, and c) system by which they are, if ever,
looked at before issuing pendings on them, allow you to make the details
so vague that it covers like 99% of every possible way to do something,
not just the "specific" device, and the "specific" usage, originally
applied for. So, of course, now, they **intentionally** make the
language that vague, knowing they can get by with doing it, instead of
being specific.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 12:57 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I was under the impression that things like (for example) the API for
>>> DirectX is patented.
>
>> Actually.. No. An API is an "interface". The underlying way that it
>> goes from, "I gave it this data", to, "It gave me this result", is
>> what is patented, not the API itself.
>
> Really? Interesting. What underlies the API calls is obviously subject
> to _copyright_ protection, but I didn't think you could _patent_
> executable code. However, I thought that you *can* patent an API.
>
>> Otherwise emulating **anything**, including the BIOS, which you need
>> to do things like DOSBox, would be illegal too.
>
> Only illegal if the BIOS interface is patented. (AFAIK, it isn't.) The
> actual BIOS code in any given motherboard has copyright protection
> [usually], but then it only works with one given motherboard anyway...
>
Well, if I am wrong about that, and I may be. It still doesn't make
sense. Part of the patent law **explicitely* allows "interoperability".
You can't have it both ways and a) prevent someone duplicating the API,
and also b) allow people to design something that can inter-operate with
the software/hardware that uses the API.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/24/2010 12:59 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> is what is patented, not the API itself.
>
> Really, it depends what's in the patent.
>
> For example, if you patent aspects of the MP3 data stream format, then
> any API that accepts an MP3 data stream as input or generates it as
> output would not be implementable without licensing the patent.
>
True enough. But, as I said in the other post to Orchid. I don't see how
you allow "interoperability", then tell people, "Oh, but sorry, you are
not allowed to duplicate how it works, so you can make it inter-operate."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/25/2010 6:39 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 6/24/2010 9:31 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> You *can* do stuff with it, but it's very unreliable.
>>>
>>> Sounds like perfect Windows emulation to me!
>>
>> Heheh. What, you mean like this?
>>
>> http://www.slimeland.com/winsim/
>>
>> I would say, Win 3.x was quite reliable (then again, it doesn't *do*
>
> Windows 3.x was stable? LMAO ... back then I only used windows when I
> absolutely had to. Very crash prone.
>
If you had all the patched dlls, it was. The problem was, you had no way
to "prevent" old ones from being installed, if you installed an older
application than the one you last did, which broke things **badly**, and
no way to tell it was going to, or tell it to not do it. But, if you got
the latest patches, you where generally OK. You just didn't want to
*dare* install anything older after. ;)
--
void main () {
If 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 <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > If it's a clear cut software-only or algorithm-only with no physical
> > application it will be rejected, in fact you'd be dumb to waste the
> > money trying to apply for a patent, no legal firm would advise you to do
> > this.
> >
> > *But*, if it applies to some physical object that can actually be made,
> > then the algorithm/program *can* be patented. For example a novel image
> > processing algorithm for improving display quality on a display is fine,
> > or a control program for a crane, that sort of thing.
> >
> > As you can imagine though, there is a huge grey area in the middle, so
> > probably some things get through that wouldn't be enforceable in court.
> That's the same rules we have here in the USA.
Clearly it isn't. Something like patenting LZW would never happen here.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>> That's the same rules we have here in the USA.
> Clearly it isn't. Something like patenting LZW would never happen here.
Unfortunately, our courts have been acting for a long time as if a computer
with a specific program on it *is* a new device. It's only recently that
they decided that the device has to be "special purpose", and now that's
going to go thru all the courts again.
In other words, it's the same titular rules (at least in terms of software
patents), but the lawyers have managed to argue that they mean something
different. That's why our patents all have wordings like "A method of
turning X into Y by applying this computerized algorithm."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
C# - a language whose greatest drawback
is that it's best implementation comes
from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
