26-Apr-2024 16:34 GMT.		 UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Anonymous, there are 155 items in your selection (but only 105 shown due to limitation) [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 51 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 12:22 GMT
In reply to Comment 46 (Anonymous):
Which is a perfect example of how patents can actually be used to fight monopolies like the one of Microsoft. You see, the major reason for their lasting monopoly is that they have the ability to provide an all in one solution like Windows, nearly removing the need for any third party products such as Netscape, WinAMP, Realplayer, etc. That's why we have patents; to make it illegal for companies to steal other people's innovations and compete with unfair conditions. Just because you can't use other people's innovations, does that mean you wouldn't be able to compete? No, you just need to innovate something of your own. Companies like Microsoft rarely invent anything of their own, not even Windows itself was a unique idea. This is another reason for why I think we need patents; to protect original inventors from parasites like Microsoft.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 52 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 47 (MarkTime):
> 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

And that exactly is the debating point and, if I may say so, your error:

you imply that it's illegal to violate an End User License Agreement (EULA) while it clearly isn't illegal per se in many countries and most notably the EU:

An end user license agreement for generic software has no legal power. It's not a legal document. It does not rise to the legally binding character of a signed agreement: The US idea of "open and you are bound by the license, no matter what" has no relevance in Europe. If you buy generic software in the EU, the *only* law governing its use are the EU laws and the fancy points in the EULAs aren't worth the paper they are printed on, unless it happens to say the same in different words.

If the EU permits a personal backup (it does), you are entitled to a backup no matter what the EULA says. If the EU permits resale of software (it does), you can sell used software including shareware keyfiles, not matter what the EULA says. And so yon, you get the idea.

The only EULA case I remember that ever was brought before a court here was Microsoft's OEM license: a court ruled against Microsoft that they could not enforce bundling of OEM software with specific hardware via an EULA. After that ruling, dealers were given free hand to unbundle OEM software and sell it separately. This ruling comes pretty close to the Mac OS EULA issue, if you ask me.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 53 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 12:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 45 (samface):
> So, something I explicitly state to only be an example and something "I don't
> know" is a lie? LOL! Whatever, Fabio. Whatever... *chuckles*

I wonder if you really believe in what you write, or if you just pretend to be that stupid.

You didn't say "for example, IF Amiga patented the context menus...", you said that Amiga DID patent the context menus, and that was an example of what you meant.

The more you write the stupider you look to me.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 54 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 12:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 43 (Anonymous):
> So it wasn't you who posted this thread then, right?

And what has that to do with what we're talking about? I merely reported some facts, that's a far cry from repeteadly stating to be against something.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 55 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
> What HAS been patented is a method by which a visitor to a website can make a purchase with a single mouseclick

If I replace METHOD with CONCEPT in that sentence, I don't notice a difference. It appears one needs ten+ years of linguistic studies to get your fine distincions. Anyway, it doesn't matter, because an ignoramus above thought that patents protect implementations which is not the case. They protect abstract [METHODS|CONCEPTS] (please choose according to preference).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 56 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 12:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (samface):
> My answer would be that I don't know,

Oh dear, so, by your reasoning, you are MAKING FUD?! :)

There you go Sam, I told you: whichever way you put it, you lose.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 57 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 12:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 41 (samface):
> 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.

Btw, that was not your reasoning when you made your comments, because you explicitely stated that the fact that culprit was the VIa chip had been proven. You reported what you now admit being just an opinion of Hermans as a proven fact.

Yet another attempt at twisting reality by samface. Will you ever grow up, sam?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 58 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:44 GMT
In reply to Comment 51 (samface):
> Which is a perfect example of how patents can actually be used to fight monopolies like the one of Microsoft

That must be the reason why Microsoft wants patents but the Linux community is opposed to it. No. Everything considered, patents benefit the mighty, even if they loose here and there.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 59 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 12:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 44 (Anonymous):
> You still didn't show what EXACTLY had been patented though. Now, why woudl you
> have made such an omission?

Simply because I can't bother to find the proper link for you: you have a brain, yes? Use it, dude.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 60 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 02-Sep-2003 12:51 GMT
In reply to Comment 7 (Anonymous):
> As an inventor, you are in a dilemma: patenting comes with disclosure. This is (sometimes) problem for small companies and individuals. Patent violations are not so rare but if you don't have money to defend your patents you lose.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 61 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 12:57 GMT
In reply to Comment 60 (itix):
>This is (sometimes) problem for small companies and individuals. Patent violations are not so rare but if you don't have money to defend your patents you lose.

You must mean "lose" in the sense of "the patent is not enforced" because patents do not automatically expire if undefended (because of a momentary lack of funds, for example).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 62 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 12:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 53 (Fabio Alemagna):
Why did you leave out the "I don't know part"? You see, I said that for specificly pointing out that I wasn't sure and why you keep ignoring this is beyond me. Furthermore, even if what you are saying would be true, why can't you even except my clarification? I mean, noone knows what I actually meant better than me and it's obvious that you misunderstood. However, when you keep denying my intentions despite my clarification, it seems like this is about something else rather than a mere misunderstanding. Is it that you for some reason don't want to understand me?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 63 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 13:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 54 (Fabio Alemagna):
Merely stated facts? I'm sorry Fabio but you did say that the canadians are "right", which is an obvious statement of your opinion regarding this matter.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 64 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 02-Sep-2003 13:03 GMT
In reply to Comment 51 (samface):
I wonder if you could win patent infringements against Microsoft during your lifetime. If you win you could get a jackpot - when you are 96 and dying. However it looks like everyone is copying features from Windows, not vice versa.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 65 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 13:04 GMT
In reply to Comment 63 (samface):
> I'm sorry Fabio but you did say

Samface, Fabio, could you (both) please stop the rather childish i-said-you-said?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 66 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 02-Sep-2003 13:05 GMT
In reply to Comment 61 (Anonymous):
Correct. Sorry for my bad wording.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 67 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 13:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 57 (Fabio Alemagna):
>Btw, that was not your reasoning when you made your comments, because you
>explicitely stated that the fact that culprit was the VIa chip had been
>proven. You reported what you now admit being just an opinion of Hermans as a
>proven fact.

Now you are mixing things up. The reasoning behind my quote of Ben Hermans was a reply to Amon_re regarding his statement and had nothing to do with the reasoning I had while arguing with you about the VIA issue. I'm sorry but it seems that you simply misunderstood and assumed that I was talking about the same thing while in fact I wasn't. Face it and leave it be, please.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 68 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 13:09 GMT
In reply to Comment 58 (Anonymous):
The Linux community is pretty much against all forms non-disclosurements and is an entirely different story.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 69 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 13:12 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (itix):
>However it looks like everyone is copying features from Windows, not vice versa.

Indeed. And they are quite relaxed about it, you don't hear much of them suing the hell out of people who steal XP icons, plagiarize the start menu, duplicate Word etc. Their IP efforts are rather low-key, a licensed protocol here and there, etc. I guess they are comfortable enough with the give-and-take status quo and well aware of the fact that it benefits them, too, and that they are in no position to throw the first stone on moral grounds (isn't XP a clone of MacOS?). Good for KDE.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 70 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 13:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 68 (samface):
>The Linux community is pretty much against all forms non-disclosurements and is an entirely different story.

Flawed argumentation: since patents are about disclosing, the Linux community should have no objections on those grounds. Their objections are based on exacly the same reasons put forward by small companies and individual developers and not particulary tied to the "open source" model or the GPL (innovation, fair playing field, practicality etc.). Consequently, there is no reason to discredit their views as you appear to be doing here.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 71 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 13:21 GMT
In reply to Comment 64 (itix):
>However it looks like everyone is copying features from Windows, not vice
>versa.

I doubt that. I mean, it's not like they invented the icon based operating system, you know. I give them credit for the Start menu, but is there really much besides this that they invented on their own?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 72 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 13:35 GMT
In reply to Comment 70 (Anonymous):
>Consequently, there is no reason to discredit their views as you appear to be >doing here.

All I said was that this is an entirely different story. Linux original goal was to copy the functionality of UNIX and release it as open source and for free, which is not very fair competition, IMO. I know, Linux has evolved into so much more than just a UNIX clone, but I think this reflects the general idea of "fair competition" in the Linux community.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 73 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 13:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (samface):
>I give them credit for the Start menu, but is there really much besides this that they invented on their own?

Hard to say what exactly they invented on their own but equally hard to say what portion of their software is not copied. Telling Word and Excel apart from their clones can be difficult. I specifically give them credit for integrating HTML into the operating system, for embedded applications (formerly known as OLE, object linking and embedding), for the Start menu, for the SDI/MDI window models, for anchoring "things" in a unified file system (the desktop, the start menu, the network, the "my computer" etc.), for the hardware assistant and for setting a standard for development systems. Some other stuff was probably ripped off but is associated by me with Windows due to lack of education: context menus, rip-off-toolbars, rip-off-containers, animated user interface (animated menus, copying etc.), file links, etc.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 74 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 13:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 72 (samface):
> I think this reflects the general idea of "fair competition" in the Linux community

I strongly hope the idea of fair competition is not anchored in the Linux community alone.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 75 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by samface on 02-Sep-2003 13:47 GMT
In reply to Comment 74 (Anonymous):
Everybody has their own view on what is "fair compeition". However, my point is that everyone's idea of fair compeition is far from the same.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 76 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 02-Sep-2003 13:56 GMT
In reply to Comment 71 (samface):
> I give them credit for the Start menu, but is there really much besides this that they invented on their own? There is. Just browse their patent collection which is online @ http://www.uspto.gov/
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 77 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 14:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 75 (samface):
> However, my point is that everyone's idea of fair compeition is far from the same

True but trivial, isn't it? Instead of pointing out that ideas of fair competition vary, it would be useful to understand how patents fit into the picture, even if we limit the discussion to the aspect of "fairness" (not that I think that that's a good idea, patents have many more aspects than fairness). So here is a thought on fairness, and excuse me if I'm quoting myself:

The typical scenario of software creation is that a developer is unaware of the 30,000+ filed software patents (mentally incapable to have them all in mind): applications are designed, code is created, work is completed, software is released. Only then patent holders step up and open their hand, with the license to rob you blind, because they detect that a patented concept is present in the software. I think it is open to question who exactly steals whom's work here and if the scenario is fair.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 78 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Cluke on 02-Sep-2003 14:17 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
Please. Amazon's 'method' of implementing one-click buying is to remember, via cookies, who has logged in on that computer before and to use their order details when they click.

How could you implement one-click buying without doing this utterly obvious procedure? I sure can't think of a way.
So, that means they are patenting the concept of one-click purchasing.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 79 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 02-Sep-2003 14:34 GMT
US Patent Office says what can be patented.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm

Please read if you care to comment on further points of this thread...

"Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter. "
-- As such my take is that mathematical truths are derived from the laws of nature and should not be patentable. Software is writing but uses mathematical truths to create it's subject matter. By using mathematical formulae it should not be patentable. Also, because it is writing it should not be patentable as ideas are not patentable. I think that Copywrite law, which protects works of art, is a better place then patent law.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 80 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 14:36 GMT
In reply to Comment 55 (Anonymous):
" If I replace METHOD with CONCEPT in that sentence, I don't notice a difference"

If you can not tell the difference between a concept and a method, then you have absolutely no business even reading a thread like this one.

*sigh*
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 81 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 14:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 59 (Fabio Alemagna):
Yes thanks, I have a brain - do you? Perhaps it is time you started using yours instead of simply insulting everyone who dares to disagree withyou?

If you used your brain then you would realise that you are barking up the wrong tree and there is nothing inherantly wrong with software patents (certainly not in the way you claim).
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 82 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 15:00 GMT
In reply to Comment 78 (Cluke):
" How could you implement one-click buying without doing this utterly obvious procedure? I sure can't think of a way. "

So just because YOU cannot think of a way, it can't be done, right?

Since you ask, I can think of at least 1 other way to implement such equivalent functionality (as far as the user is concerned) without violating Amazon's patent.

No, I am not going to disclose it to you. If you can't think of it, then it can't be "obvious", ergo I might actually try patenting it myself. And if I succeed, then you have zero right to complain because you have just admitted that as far as you are concerned it is not an obvious method.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 83 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 16:24 GMT
In reply to Comment 79 (BrianK):
> US Patent Office says what can be patented.

Don't forget the part "in the US". Unlike copyright, patents have no value and jurisdiction "outside". While that's an impressive 280+ million people, it's not so much compared to the 8+ billion people in the world.

>As such my take is that mathematical truths are derived from the laws of nature and should not be patentable

Since even DNA sequences read out from existing lifeforms can be patented, your take might be wrong. It appears that wherever you look, the reality of granting patents does not live up to the original idea.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 84 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 16:34 GMT
In reply to Comment 50 (Anonymous):
...and all other sites that have a similar mechanism either now have
to patent THEIR 'one click' method...or prove their method is done differently
or even get their method stolen and patented by someone else!

software patents are a universally bad idea because they mean that people
can patent a method of doing something with code....and everyone else from then one has to reinvent the wheel to do the same job.

hey! I'll patent a way..the damn ovbious way!..of saving a file to a
magnetic storage disc...a 'hard disk'. now everyone else who wants to
do a 'save' method in their programs will have to write a totally different
way of doing it.


and as for 'methods' vs 'ideas' the US patent system clearly (from examples i've seen of just sketches and overblown text!) allows patenting of non-existing stuff
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 85 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 16:39 GMT
In reply to Comment 80 (Anonymous):
> If you can not tell the difference between a concept and a method, then you have absolutely no business even reading a thread like this one.

That's funny because I was under the impression that is you who has this small linguistic problem ;-) Let's have an example and assume that pull-down menus were not yet invented. Apple comes up with the idea while everybody else is still using command lines. They patent it: a patent on a new method of interacting with the computer. Their patent might read like this: "A method to interact with the computer by selecting one of many commands from a list which opens below a stripe of headings etc." Now they have patented a method (of interaction). Another way to put it is to say that they have patented the concept known to ut as "pull down menus". I have no hope that you will get it but hope that, to those with a two-digit IQ, this is a reasonable linguistic example. There are a lot of other examples that clearly demonstrate that your assertion that patents are about "methods" (and nothing but) is nonsense.

> Yes thanks, I have a brain - do you

If you have to point that out, you are in dangerous territory :-)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 86 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Bill Hoggett on 02-Sep-2003 17:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 72 (samface):
@samface

> All I said was that this is an entirely different story. Linux original
> goal was to copy the functionality of UNIX and release it as open source
> and for free, which is not very fair competition, IMO. I know, Linux has
> evolved into so much more than just a UNIX clone, but I think this
> reflects the general idea of "fair competition" in the Linux community.

Actually, what this does is reflect on the agendas of people who tell blatant lies to promote their point of view. Your assertions above are just plain bullsh*t, as anyone who has studied the history of Linux will know. Unfortunately, there are plenty of ignorant people who will read what you write and believe every word of it because they don't know any better, which is why this kind of cr*p is so dangerous.

If anyone wants to know how Linux really started and what its aims were, as well as understanding the philosophy behind open source software, I suggest they read some of the excellent books on the subject rather than believe samface's lies. Linux and Open Source did not come about as a result of people wanting to copy other people's work and make it available for free.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 87 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 17:50 GMT
In reply to Comment 86 (Bill Hoggett):
Indeed.

Linux came about because a young student, upon reading Tannenbaum's book on Minix (designed to teach operating system coding) decided he could do better and so he tried.

And that's all there was to it - no grand conspiracy theories or plans to take over the world.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 88 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 17:53 GMT
In reply to Comment 85 (Anonymous):
"et's have an example and assume that pull-down menus were not yet invented. Apple comes up with the idea while everybody else is still using command lines. They patent it: a patent on a new method of interacting with the computer. Their patent might read like this: "A method to interact with the computer by selecting one of many commands from a list which opens below a stripe of headings etc." Now they have patented a method (of interaction). Another way to put it is to say that they have patented the concept known to ut as "pull down menus"."

Nice try, but wrong.

they have not patented the concept of pull-down menus - they have patented a METHOD of implementing them.

Indeed, in your example, I coudl easily create a pull-down menu which does not infringe your patent. My pull-down menus will not "open below a stripe of headings". They will open along-side a block of titles.

Seriously, that is enough to make my METHOD uncovered by your patent. Yet it still offers pulldown menu functionality.

You were saying, smart-ass?
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 89 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 18:38 GMT
In reply to Comment 88 (Anonymous):
> they have not patented the concept of pull-down menus - they have patented a METHOD of implementing them [...] I could easily create a pull-down menu which does not infringe

You would not be able to implement the concept of pull-down menus for a very simple reason: because the patent wouldn't allow it. Don't be so stupid to assume that the example above, a single sentence composed in ten seconds, is "the patent": It may come as a surprise to you but real patents are longer than one sentence and have the benefit of considerable thought invested into them via the services of patent lawyers. There will not be loopholes left for you to modify the concept a tiny bit and, surprise, you have circumvented the patent and essentially can implement pull-down menus.

> Seriously, that is enough to make my METHOD uncovered by your patent. Yet it still offers pulldown menu functionality.

That's a trivial fact: The primary functionality of pull-down menus is to run commands via the mouse and there are countless alternatives with the same functionality. I have no idea why you bring it up, it's irrelevant to your assertions. The concept of pull-down menus would still be patented.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 90 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 18:45 GMT
In reply to Comment 89 (Anonymous):
" You would not be able to implement the concept of pull-down menus for a very simple reason: because the patent wouldn't allow it."

and therein lies the root problem - your arrogant ignorance.

Let me ask you - how many patents do you actually have?

None I rather suspect, as you show a complete ignorance of the fundamentals of the patent process.

I've been through it, many times. I know what I am talking about. I have also been on teh other end, namely working to get a product designed working around existing patents to avoid infringement.


YOU CAN NOT PATENT A CONCEPT OR NEBULOUS IDEA.

That is fact, whether you like it or not.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 91 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by BrianK on 02-Sep-2003 18:48 GMT
In reply to Comment 83 (Anonymous):
Hmm, didn't think of that. It appears that the US allows you to patent genomes though many see this against the patent law...
'Trying to patent a human gene is like trying to patent a tree. You can patent a table that you build from a tree, but you cannot patent the tree itself
William Haseltine - President, Human Genome Science '

One interesting things about patents is they must describe in detail the thing being patented. Let's say I patent software in the US. They aren't valid outside the US. In addition, I just let the majority of the world know the 'invention' now they can go and build it and in turn compete against me. While I can prevent their sale from the US I have to contend with the rest of the world markets. Ugh.

Copywrite for software makes more logical sense to me then patent law.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 92 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 18:59 GMT
In reply to Comment 90 (Anonymous):
> YOU CAN NOT PATENT A CONCEPT OR NEBULOUS IDEA

But you are aware that you are the first person in this thread to bring up the idea to patent "a nebulous idea", aren't you? Denying the validity of something that was never claimed shows in the very least a slight problem with reading. As to obtaining a patent on pull-down menus, if they were invented last week and with no prior art, there is nothing nebulous about it, as long as you stay sober.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 93 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 19:01 GMT
In reply to Comment 90 (Anonymous):
> I've been through it, many times. I know what I am talking about. I have also been on the other end.

You forget the "I'm so full of myself" part (just kidding :-)
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 94 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 19:06 GMT
In reply to Comment 92 (Anonymous):
" But you are aware that you are the first person in this thread to bring up the idea to patent "a nebulous idea", aren't you?"

Nope.

"Pull down menu" is a nebulopus concept.

You can not patent the concept.

you *can* patent an implementation or a method of implementing it, but you can not simply patent the CONCEPT.

Putting it simply, you can not patent the "what" of something, only the "how to do it / make it. build it" of an instance of something.

You cannot patent "pull down menus". you can only patent METHODS of IMPLEMENTING them.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 95 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by itix on 02-Sep-2003 19:11 GMT
In reply to Comment 82 (Anonymous):
> No, I am not going to disclose it to you. If you can't think of it, then it can't be "obvious", ergo I might actually try patenting it myself.> And if I succeed, then you have zero right to complain because you have just admitted that as far as you are concerned it is not an obvious method. This also implies the problem of patenting. You cant have a patent without disclosing your invention. Anyone could abuse your invention... if you dont like it feel free to hire a lawyer :-P
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 96 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 19:19 GMT
In reply to Comment 95 (itix):
" This also implies the problem of patenting. You cant have a patent without disclosing your invention"

I know - when you apply for a patent, you have to give full disclosure of the best methods.
So you get commecial exclusivity for a period, BUT in return you have to tell the world how to do it - seems reasonable to me.

Of course, if you do not want to disclose (and thus you want to keep it secret), then don't patent it. Done that before too.

However, what you do NOT do is disclose publically (i.e. to ANYONE except under legally-binding NDA) prior to the patent application being filed, otherwise you immediately open up the possibility of someone else getting the patent for your idea!
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 97 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by 3seas on 02-Sep-2003 19:35 GMT
The EU is going to support software patents to a degree that is incorrect.
But in the long run the patent systems are going to fail. And it wil perhaps been good to have contributed to it becoming top heavy enough to fall sooner than later.

There is a matter of the reason why to have a patent system in the first place, but time changes everything and computer in general are also helping to bring about such changes that will cause the outdating of the patent systme sooner.

Believe it or not, such outdating of the value of patents has already begun. It's even been in the news recently regarding one of the most expensive industries to do R&D in, the medical industry. Drugs for the treatment of AIDS and other human and moral related matters...

The question to ask is: Does granting a patent help or hinder progress?

Patents were created to help progress but with software and apparently some tpyes of medicines, patents are not helping as well or weaking in their value.

Of course one of the concerns supportive of patents is that of recouping the R&D costs.... But what happens when a technology such as Computer (including software) helps to dramatically reduce the R&D costs of other industries? Not to forget that computer programming technology itself can be automated and simplified...

A very recursive and reflective ... gravity point....
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 98 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 19:37 GMT
In reply to Comment 94 (Anonymous):
> "Pull down menu" is a nebulous concept

It apparently is to you ;-) To me, it is a tiny and uncomplicated example choosen for exactly that quality. Real patents score higher on the nebulous scale. Let's pick a recent example that was decided in favour of the patent holder: Eolas patent on the concept of "applets" in browsers, ie. clients that cooperate with the browser and possibly a server: It's not too specific, it does not cover details, it does not detail how the applet is implemented or how exactly it interfaces to the applications. No applet is implemented and patented. The patent just says "applet" and patents the very concept and "any algorithm". It's very "nebulous" in your words (or very broad-based in my words).

-- quote

EOLAS ACQUIRES COMMERCIAL RIGHTS TO KEY WORLD WIDE WEB PATENT


CHICAGO: Eolas Technologies Inc. announced today that it has completed a licensing agreement with the University of California for the exclusive rights to a pending patent covering the use of embedded program objects, or "applets," within World Wide Web documents.

Also covered is the use of any algorithm which implements dynamic bi-directional communications between Web browsers and external applications.

This development will have a major impact on the ability of Internet content providers to exploit the expanding interactive capabilities of the Web to gain advantage in the highly competitive online market.

Currently, various combinations of embedded applets and software development APIs (application development interfaces) are major features of Web browsers from Netscape, Spyglass, Microsoft, AOL/Navisoft, NeXT, and Sun Microsystems (especially Sun's new Java language.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 99 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Fabio Alemagna on 02-Sep-2003 19:40 GMT
In reply to Comment 65 (Anonymous):
> Samface, Fabio, could you (both) please stop the rather childish
> i-said-you-said?

I totally agree, that's bothering me to death. I'll let him believe whatever he wants.
SW Patents - Voting delayed : Comment 100 of 155ANN.lu
Posted by Anonymous on 02-Sep-2003 19:43 GMT
In reply to Comment 98 (Anonymous):
" Eolas patent on the concept of "applets""

Nice try, but as ever you are still deliberately confusing the issue.

Eolas has no patent on any "concepts". Because NOBODY does because you cannot patent a CONCEPT.

They do, however, have pantents on METHODS and IMPLEMENATIONS.

Tell you what - go and read their patnt then come back and talk.
Anonymous, there are 155 items in your selection (but only 105 shown due to limitation) [1 - 50] [51 - 100] [101 - 150] [151 - 155]
Back to Top