19-Nov-2019 12:25 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 155 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 155]
[Web] SW Patents - Voting delayedANN.lu
Posted on 02-Sep-2003 08:53 GMT by Fabio Alemagna155 comments
View flat
View list

Since there's been already quite some talk about SW patents here, I'd thought I'd update you with the latest happenings: the protest has had success, the voting date has been postponed to some day during the last week of September!

ZDNet has an article about it.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 1 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by JoannaK on 02-Sep-2003 06:57 GMT
Good. That's so complex issue that it's better be right when they make
laws that are having so much impact to us.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 2 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 07:14 GMT
On slashdot I found this nice piece of information, which is taken from a website about patents in Canada. I must say Canadians have got it right ;)

"The difficulty with software is that programs generally centre around the use of mathematics and algorithms. It is clear that a software-related invention must do more than merely perform a calculation and must be more than an algorithm embodied in software. Otherwise, it will fall into the category of a "mere scientific principle or abstract theorem" and therefore be unpatentable. .

The test for determining whether a software related invention is patentable was set out in Schlumberger Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of Patents (1981), 56 C.P.R.(2d) 204 (F.C.A.). The test considers, what (if anything), according to the application, has been discovered. The court held that if the invention was merely the discovery that by making certain calculations according to certain formulae, useful information could be extracted from certain measurements, then the application should be refused on the basis that it lacked patentable subject matter under section 2 of the Patent Act. Essentially, the court suggested that if the program interacted with physical objects other than the computer in a novel, useful and inventive way, the invention was patentable. In response to Schlumberger and related decisions, the Patent Office developed new guidelines, used by the Patent Office Examiners to assess the patentability of computer related subject matter. The guidelines are as follows:

1.Computer programs per se are not patentable;
2.Processes which are unapplied mathematical calculations, even if expressed in words rather than in mathematical symbols, are not patentable;
3.A process and/or computer program which merely produces information for mental interpretation by a human being is not patentable, nor does the process or program confer novelty upon the apparatus which uses it;
4.Claims drawn up in terms of means plus function which merely produce intellectual data are not patentable;
5.New and useful processes incorporating a computer program, and apparatus incorporating a programmed computer, are directed to patentable subject matter if the computer related matter has been integrated with another practical system that falls within an area which is traditionally patentable; and
6.The presence of a programmed general purpose computer or a program for such a computer does not lend patentability to, nor subtract patentability from, an apparatus or process."
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 3 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 08:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 2 (Fabio Alemagna):
I don't agree. The source code of a program is like a design or a construction of a product that has the ability to perform a certain service. Removing the author's right to patent his product design would be like removing Coca-Cola's right to patent their recipe. I mean, by your reasoning, you sound like you are against all forms of patent registrations rather than just software patents, is that it?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 4 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Piru on 02-Sep-2003 08:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (samface):
> I mean, by your reasoning

That is not Fabio's reasoning, in case you didn't notice.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 5 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 09:31 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (samface):
>I don't agree. The source code of a program is like a design

Who cares if you agree or not if you have no clue about the issue. For your enlightenment, copyright protects source code, patents do not.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 6 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 09:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (samface):
> I don't agree.

We know you don't, but don't tell that to me, since that's not my reasoning, tell that to the Canadian government.

Let us know what they answer :)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 7 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 09:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (samface):
>Removing the author's right to patent his product design would be like removing Coca-Cola's right to patent their recipe

Cocal Cola never patented their recipe because a "side effect" of patents is that they exprire. Their recipe would be public and - by now - duplicated. The original intention of patents is to protect *and* to disclose. As an inventor, you are in a dilemma: patenting comes with disclosure. If you patent, everybody knows what you are doing and you show up on the radar of the competition. If you do not patent, somebody might grab the patent before you.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 8 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Sep-2003 09:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 3 (samface):
Ok, we got it now, you're totally AGAINST any competition...
It's not TAKING a right, it's not giving an extra right to BIG companies.
Microsoft could patent a feature that has not been patented yet, that covers
stuff that most operating systems do. Would you like that?

Well, *you* would, I guess... ;-)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 9 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 09:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Anonymous):
This is about a vote about wether to allow patents of software or not, right? Then shouldn't it be perfectly natural to discuss our thoughts on the matter and by reasonable arguments make up one's mind? Your statement that this would be an indisputable fact defies the entire purpose of this vote, you know.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 10 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 09:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 4 (Piru):
Perhaps it helps if I quote Fabio:

" must say Canadians have got it right ;) "

That makes it very much his own reasoning too. He agrees to it, I don't. He presented his opinion, can I please present my opinion too?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 11 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 09:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
Ok, bad example. However, for some reason I believe you did get my idea and just pointed this out for the sake of arguing. Replace Coca-Cola's recipe with just about any design for a new invention, ok?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 12 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 09:52 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (samface):
@samface:
> Then shouldn't it be perfectly natural to discuss our thoughts on the matter and by reasonable arguments make up one's mind?

That's not the point and was not the reason for my rude comment. You have posted the exact same ill-conceived patents-according-to-samface idea in the other thread. It's not a matter of opinion: patents just don't protect source code (as in f.a.c.t.). Get over it. If you refuse to be corrected, live with the comments.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 13 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 09:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 8 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
No, I'm not against competition at all, just the parasitic kind that discourage innovation.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 14 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 09:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 6 (Fabio Alemagna):
See comment #10.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 15 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 09:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 9 (samface):
> Then shouldn't it be perfectly natural to discuss our thoughts on the matter and
> by reasonable arguments make up one's mind?

It should, but don't fool yourself there: you should know better than anyone else here that you'll nener move from the position you took, so why bother discussing with you? It doesn't matter how many people contested your thoughts with well reasoned words, you keep repeating on and on the same song.

By now everyone knows you're against this protest, so give it a rest and let the rest of us discuss normally.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 16 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 09:58 GMT
In reply to Comment 12 (Anonymous):
>patents just don't protect source code (as in f.a.c.t.).

What is this poll about, again? Furthermore, if that is the case, why would we need a poll about it in the first place? I'm sorry but you're not making much sense, I'm afraid.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 17 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 10 (samface):
> That makes it very much his own reasoning too. He agrees to it, I don't. He
> presented his opinion, can I please present my opinion too?

LOL, you're such a funny guy :)

http://www.ann.lu/comments2.cgi?view=1062414251&category=forum&start=101#message130

You wrote:
"What problems do you have with understanding the words "according to"? This simply proves your inability to comprehend what is actually beeing said to you."
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 18 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:02 GMT
In reply to Comment 11 (samface):
> Ok, bad example.

Very bad, since you claim to know things which you obviously have no knowledge about.

Stop it, Sam.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 19 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 10:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Fabio Alemagna):
Yes, I agree that our discussions sound something along the lines:

Person A: The car is blue.

Person B: No, it is actually a very fast car.

Person A: I'm sorry but that doesn't change the fact that the car is blue, you know.

Person C: Stop repeating that over and over again, you blatant troll! We're starting to get rather fed up with your BS.

And so forth... Anyway, I'm rather amused by it rather than annoyed.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 20 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 14 (samface):
Bah, my reply didn't even ring a bell in your head, did it? I just used your very same reasoning, and your reluctancy at accepting it shows that you don't even agree with yourself.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 21 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Sep-2003 10:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (samface):
Patents do NOT protect source code... Copyright does... Patents are made to
"protect" innovations, ideas, methods, algorithms etc...
They are EXTREMELY dangerous... What if someone patented the idea of Operating
Systems 30-40 years ago? Imagine where computing would be now...
That's the point... I can make up a thousant examples like this if you want.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 22 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 10:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 17 (Fabio Alemagna):
You don't see the difference between "according to" and "they surely got it right"? Oh geez... give me a break, Fab!
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 23 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 10:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 16 (samface):
> What is this poll about, again?

In God's name, get educated. It's about patents. Patents protect concepts, not implementations. For example, if you invent a concept of "extending applications with plug-ins, which add additional capabilities at run time", that's a patent. Not a single line of source code, as you can see. Copyright, on the other hand, protects the actual implementation: if you develop software, it's protected by copyright (as is the source code, if you release it with it). Coypright prevents the code from unauthorized use. Copyright comes for free, you do not have to apply for it or pay fees.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 24 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 22 (samface):
> You don't see the difference between "according to" and "they surely got it
> right"? Oh geez... give me a break, Fab!

You must be really stupid, because now you got me asking you this question: so, do you think that "they surely got it right", Sam?

Answer, please, either with no or yes.

Now let's see what will you do. I hope you realize you put yourself in a very uncomfortable position, Sam: whatever you answer, you'll lose.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 25 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 10:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
"They are EXTREMELY dangerous... What if someone patented the idea of Operating
Systems 30-40 years ago?"

That is a matter of at which degree you allow software patents to be registered rather than an argument for ditching the whole concept of software patents. I mean, how about restricting it to specific functions rather than complete systems? For example, context sensitive menus is a registered Amiga patent (unless it has expired, I don't know).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 26 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 10:14 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Fabio Alemagna):
I already replied to your "canadian" post, Fab. You do have a scroll wheel on your mouse, right?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 27 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 10:29 GMT
In reply to Comment 24 (Fabio Alemagna):
Again, you said:

"I must say Canadians have got it right ;)"

Did you or did you not mean that you agree to their reasoning by these words? Because it sure looks like you do, which makes it perfectly natural of me to counter argue this as YOUR reasoning.

The "According to" statement that I made in that other thread contained no reflections of my own what so ever regarding the words I quoted, which puts everything in an entirely different light. Furthermore, not only did you assume that this would be my own reasoning and directed at you, you claimed that I had the reasoning of a three year old and used rather agressive wordings in general. I'm sorry but I have to say that you should reflect a bit more over your own behavior before criticizing others.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 28 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Alkis Tsapanidis on 02-Sep-2003 10:32 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (samface):
Context sensitive menus is not, menu multiselection is though (and I think the
way that the hidden menus are there).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 29 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 10:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (samface):
> That is a matter of at which degree you allow software patents to be registered rather than an argument for ditching the whole concept of software patents

Yes, it is, that's the crux of it. And that's why so many are so fiercly opposed to patents. They see how they are implemented and abused in the US and what consequences they have for small companies and individual developers. We've only seen the tip of an iceberg so far and even that part looks ugly: million dollar law suits over one-step-buy buttons.

If the EU does not implement software patents, software development in the EU might have an enormous advantage: not only would competition be higher and software variety would be greater, EU companies also would not have to finance the potentially enormous costs of software patents (investigate, apply, defend and license). The US might benefit in the short term by protecting its home turf from imported software on grounds of US patent violation but in the long term, it would work against them - imagine Linux banned in the US - by falling victim to the monopoly of large companies. In other words, if the EU takes a stance against software patents now, I am hopeful that the US might be forced to compromise.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 30 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 25 (samface):
> For example, context sensitive menus is a registered Amiga patent (unless it has
> expired, I don't know).

Yet another lie... how many more do you have in your can, Sam?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 31 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 26 (samface):
> I already replied to your "canadian" post, Fab. You do have a scroll wheel on
> your mouse, right?

What has that got to do with my question? I asked if you think "they got it right" about Hyperion stating that it's not confirmed that the problem was with the VIA chip.

Answer to THAT.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 32 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 10:42 GMT
In reply to Comment 27 (samface):
> The "According to" statement that I made in that other thread contained no
> reflections of my own what so ever regarding the words I quoted, which puts
> everything in an entirely different light.

So, you say that you don't agree with them, Sam?

It's really simple: either you DO agree with them, or you don't. Either way you put it, you lose.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 33 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:13 GMT
In reply to Comment 21 (Alkis Tsapanidis):
"What if someone patented the idea of Operating
Systems 30-40 years ago?"

I know you are going to find this hard to understand, but do try to pay attention as it is rather fundamental...

YOU CAN NOT PATENT IDEAS.

You can only patent SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS of things.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 34 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:15 GMT
In reply to Comment 23 (Anonymous):
"Patents protect concepts, not implementations. For example, if you invent a concept of "extending applications with plug-ins, which add additional capabilities at run time", that's a patent."

Bullshit.

You can not patent a concept.

You patent an implementation of a method of implementation, nothing more.


you could patent a METHOD of implementing plugins, but you coudl not patent the nebulous concept of "plugin".
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 35 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:18 GMT
In reply to Comment 15 (Fabio Alemagna):
" By now everyone knows you're against this protest, so give it a rest "

By now everyone knows you're in favour of this protest, so give it a rest.

(Two can play at the "you disagree so shut up" game, Fabio)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 36 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 11:20 GMT
In reply to Comment 35 (Anonymous):
> By now everyone knows you're in favour of this protest, so give it a rest.

It's not me the one going around stating why he's so against this protest, so I've already given it a rest.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 37 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 11:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 33 (Anonymous):
> You can only patent SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATIONS of things.

Sorry, that's just bullshit. The one-click-buy button patent tells you anything? What's been patented is the concept that one can provide the user with a system by which he/she presses a button and directly buys whatever he/she chosed, without going trough tens of other pages first.

That's right, that has been patented. I could provide you with tons of other examples, if you wish.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 38 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 11:27 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
> you could patent a METHOD of implementing plugins, but you coudl not patent the
> nebulous concept of "plugin".

Look what, it's been patented,instead:

http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php?id=1454359182&fp=16&fpid=0

Now, still so comfortable with the idea of SW patents?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 39 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by dammy on 02-Sep-2003 11:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Fabio Alemagna):
> Yet another lie... how many more do you have in your can, Sam?

What, you expect that troll to be intellectually honest? Give me a break.

Dammy
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 40 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by MarkTime on 02-Sep-2003 11:43 GMT
you all, are of course, mostly right about the difference between patents and copyrights, but we use the word copyright so much, lets not forget that is really about the 'right to copy' hence copyright. Copyrights do not protect computer programs except in terms of distribution of programs.

Much of the computer industry is not about distribution, however, as someone can download, as an example a Quake 3 demo from ID's website, and thats legal distribution. (Gosh someone's going to kill me for using a made up example).

But then, when someone applies a crack to a demo version making it a full running version. They have broken no copyright laws. The violation they committed doesn't involve copying.

It's still illegal but its breaking of a contract. It's plain and simple contract law....EULA's, we call them now. Not copyright.

It's important because, while I think we should be strongly against patents for software....at some point a serious person cannot just be against all rule of law, and has to come down in favor of laws that protect innovation.

So some of you favor copyright protection, what about Eula's?

Copyrights without EULA or contract law protections don't go very far in the digital age.....and thats the problem here.

I agree, software patents are destructive, and I'm glad that almost all of us agree on that, but the real problem is the utter lack of understanding that contracts should be valid legal concepts....that is the problem in this community and a greater problem at large.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 41 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 11:46 GMT
In reply to Comment 31 (Fabio Alemagna):
My answer would be that I don't know, but that I prefer to believe the words of
Ben Hermans rather than those of Bill Buck. <---THAT is my reasoning, which is not the same as the reasoning of Ben Hermans. Yet you argued with me about Ben Hermans reasoning rather than my own.

The difference between this quote and your canadian quote is that you specificly stated that you agree to their reasoning, which I stated earlier makes it perfectly natural of me to argue with their reasoning as YOUR reasoning.

You with me yet?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 42 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 37 (Fabio Alemagna):
" Sorry, that's just bullshit. The one-click-buy button patent tells you anything?"

Yes.

It tells me that they have patented a METHOD for a user to place an order without having to go through multiple pages and forms.

METHOD has been patented, Fabio, not the concept.

You can no patent conepts or ideas, merely methods and implementations.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 43 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 36 (Fabio Alemagna):
So it wasn't you who posted this thread then, right?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 44 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 38 (Fabio Alemagna):
I note that rather than point to what was patented, you point to some sloppy journalism about how M$ infringed a patent and now have to deal with the consequences.

You still didn't show what EXACTLY had been patented though. Now, why woudl you have made such an omission? Purely because had you shown the patent itself, you woudl have shown that they have patented a METHOD, nor a CONCEPT, and you would have destroyed your own argument.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 45 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 11:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 30 (Fabio Alemagna):
So, something I explicitly state to only be an example and something "I don't know" is a lie? LOL! Whatever, Fabio. Whatever... *chuckles*
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 46 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 11:54 GMT
In reply to Comment 34 (Anonymous):
> Bullshit [...] you could patent a METHOD of implementing plugins, but you coudl not patent the nebulous concept of "plugin".

Guess what, you can ;-) That's why I brought it up. One has to me more direct with ann readers, it appears, because some leave a bit to be desired in the IQ department and/or are disappointingly uninformed. Now please read up on Microsoft's recent big law suit, the one with a 521+ million US$ ruling against them. Here is a starting point:

-- cut ---

SEATTLE: A federal jury in Chicago awarded the University of California and a browser technology company $520.6 million after finding on Monday that their patents were infringed by Microsoft Corp.

The suit, originally brought against the world's largest software maker in 1999 by Eolas Technologies Inc., charged that Microsoft had used Eolas' patented Web browser technology which allows other mini-applications to work with Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, according to court documents.

Eolas had argued that the technology for "plug-ins" and "applets" made it possible for Microsoft to compete against the Netscape Navigator browser.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 47 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by MarkTime on 02-Sep-2003 12:04 GMT
let's, once again, look at my favorite argument, because its so controversial,
about whether or not Hyperion should officially endorse MOL running on an
AmigaONE with Mac OS X (or Bill Buck should sponsor development of MOL to run Mac OS X on a pegasos, for that matter).

Because no one particularly likes apple, they seem to be in favor of granting Hyperion the right to do this (actually these pirates usually don't advocate granting the right, they are usually delusional and claim the right already exists), especially since once-upon-a-time Mac emulating hardware was perfectly legal and its hard to accept that laws have changed and its now illegal to break the Mac OS X EULA in most countries.

The problem is...laws are for all of society, what you would make legal for Hyperion would become legal for everyone.

That edge you think they will have, will be immediately lost...and given to the bigger players.
A big player could destroy any competition by breaking the EULA of smaller players and allowing the end user to use their solution with the promise of eula busting software pre-installed.

The law levels the playing field, somewhat. Without these laws, the advantage will be always to the bigger players. If you can break Apple's EULA, don't forget, that would mean they can break yours too. You could never become a real threat to Apple, because they would always have the greater resources and would put you out of business every time. How could you ever have a unique solution when they could jump in and steal it every time?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 48 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:07 GMT
In reply to Comment 42 (Anonymous):
> METHOD has been patented, Fabio, not the concept.

There is no clear difference and that's not the point anyway (a buy-now button is a concept, if you ask me, not a method, but I couldn't tell the exact difference and it doesn't matter): Don't start a petty fight over words. The point is that patents don't cover specific implementations or source code but abstract concepts: If the buy-now-button was replaced with anthor image (a buy-now agent?), it would a still be covered by the patent. Because the concept of buy-now is patented for auction sites. As to Eolas, they have patented the concept of "plug-ins" and "applets" for web browsers, not any specific applet, not any specific implementation, not any specific protocol: You have a web browser which can load plug-in, you have a problem with the name Eolas. It won't matter one bit if you change the protocol a bit or tweak the source code. In case you haven't noticed, that puts Amiga browsers into dangerous territory, too.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 49 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:08 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Anonymous):
Read the patent itself, NOT the dumbed-down media reporting of comments M$ made.

You will find that it is a set of METHODS which have been patended, NOT a generalised concept.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 50 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 48 (Anonymous):
" There is no clear difference and that's not the point anyway (a buy-now button is a concept"

There is a world of difference.

A buy-now button is a concept.
But a "buy now" button has not been patented.

What HAS been patented is a method by which a visitor to a website can make a purchase with a single mouseclick without having to go through multiple pages and filling out other forms.

that is not a "buy now" button.

What has been patented is AN ENTIRE METHOD which enables the user to do this, not the simple concept of doing it.

There is a world of difference, as you well know.
Anonymous, there are 155 items in your selection [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 155]
Back to Top