a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: David Brown on 20 Apr 2010 11:21 On 20/04/2010 16:37, Chris H wrote: > In message<7199c47f-3c95-4aa1-96d6-87bc91909f7f(a)f17g2000vbd.googlegroup > s.com>, Didi<dp(a)tgi-sci.com> writes >> On Apr 20, 3:43 pm, Chris H<ch...(a)phaedsys.org> wrote: >>> In message<l156t9....(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl>, Albert van der Horst >>> <alb...(a)spenarnc.xs4all.nl> writes >>> >>>> There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for >>>> economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US >>>> and China would be certain. >>> >>> The outcome *IS* certain. China could sink the US long before military >>> action started. The US could not afford the fuel to go to war. >> >> Well if they (or anybody else) cannot afford a war things are OK. >> It gets really bad when someone cannot afford not to go to war... >> If things get to a large scale war finances are no longer a factor. >> They are that only while preparing for this war, building up reserves, >> fuel included. > > The Chinese can sink the USD in matter of hours. Then the US can not > buy fuel or food on the international markets. Actually the US could > not by anything or do any business..... no matter how many tanks it > has. > Doing that would do enormous damage to China as well. What's that saying - if you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem, but if you owe the bank a billion, the bank has a problem? China is the USA's bank - dropping the USD would mean giving up on the very large sum of money owed it by the USA. Of course, it's a useful last resort (from China's viewpoint). It's not quite MAD, since the USA would come off a lot worse than China, but it's no easy option.
From: David Brown on 20 Apr 2010 15:06 Walter Banks wrote: > > David Brown wrote: > >>> I base that on significantly longer protection and court >>> precedents over damage awards that could be based on >>> actual image copies or partial copies or similar copies of >>> content. Citing individual cases doesn't fundamentally >>> change actual over all practice. Software patents give a >>> lot of IP protection for a relatively narrow range of >>> redefined claims for short period of time. Copyright >>> gives weaker protection for a very broad range of violations >>> for a long period of time. >>> >> I agree with Jon that it is very difficult to see what your argument is >> here. > > The key to my comments are that patents require > a list of claims be defined when the patent is filed. > > This not only means that the invention must be novel > but the inventor must have specific vision on how the > invention is going to be used. > > Copyrights don't have the requirement of vision. > > Jon, David the / redefined / predefined / typo is mine > and confused my earlier comments. > I see what you are saying now. I think the confusion was at least partly because you are talking about how the /theoretical/ requirements for software patents (it must be novel, clearly described, and useful with a view to implementation), while we have been talking about the /actual/ requirements to getting a software patent in the USA (write enough words, pay the fee). We agree that even if the patent office did a proper job, software patents are unnecessary and provide little or no benefit to anyone. And because of the way the USA patent office actually works, software patents are directly harmful. Note that this is not really due to incompetence or other failings of the patent office itself, or its staff. The current USA patent system requires the patent offices to earn money. Since they earn a fee on each registered patent, while any work done checking the validity of a patent application takes time and therefore money, the obvious profit strategy is to rubber-stamp everything that passes a first-glance inspection, and leave it to the courts to figure out if it should have been issued or not. And since the USA civil courts are based on money (with a little law on the side) rather than any requirement for truth or justice, if you can afford lawyers you can get your dodgy patents strengthened just by winning a game of lawyer expenses chicken.
From: Walter Banks on 20 Apr 2010 12:23 David Brown wrote: > The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - > copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' > rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, > innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers. I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and protecting IP. w..
From: Albert van der Horst on 19 Apr 2010 16:21 In article <3slhs5tkibsfl52ptthqsc0jd5nbev82us(a)4ax.com>, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> wrote: <SNIP> >But I think the courts did, and my still, have some trouble >parsing all this, correctly and well. I doubt they are in >nearly as good a position to make judgments on these topics >and I suspect that law here is less well controlled by the >judges and more controlled by the money funding the cases. And of course they *should* be based on domain expert witnesses, impartial and in good faith. > >Jon Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert(a)spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
From: Albert van der Horst on 19 Apr 2010 17:10
In article <4BCB6184.B70A9999(a)bytecraft.com>, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > > >Jon Kirwan wrote: > >> Any substantial copy ot it should be in violation, unless it >> is for educational research purposes or personal use. So I >> guess it is good it worked out that way. > >Why should education and personal use be exempted, or >for that matter why should library of congress be exempted? > > >> Spielberg's Amistad and the ensuing plagiarism law suit >> illustrates a boundary. An author, Chase-Riboud, was flown >> to LA to discuss the optioning of her novel, Echo of Lions. >> The court determined that DreamWorks didn't violate her >> copyright, though, and that the plaintiff couldn't 'sustain' >> her burden of proof as the book contained a love story that >> was different from Amistad. They were quite similar on most >> other accounts, though, according to what I've read about >> this case. > >A counter example is Alex Haley's book about Kunta Kinte. > >> >There are real teeth in copyrights if they are exercised. Look at >> >some of the judgements in the music and movie industry. It >> >is not just a copy and on line distribution it extends to music and >> >musical arrangements. >> >> But you just gave a case, Walter, where copyrights __were__ >> exercized. The BIOS case you talked about. So your _if_ is >> already in hand. Your implication is that they aren't, yet >> you provide your own contrary evidence. > >Missed my point partly. I gave a counter example of what can >happen if they are exercised and the truth strength of copyrights. >The choice to exercise them is not always made. You did nothing of the sort. You demonstrated the truth strength of deep pockets in the US. The legislation and ideology of a country is not god-given but it is there to serve its strength, lest it perishes. As such the fundamentalist "freedom for the rich" ideology of the US is on the loosing site compared to the more centralist ideology of China. Especially the situation around IP is becoming counter productive. IP is about things that don't exist (only the expression of IP exist), and is a poor base for an economy. There is only so much military superiority can do to compensate for economic weakness. Not that the outcome of a confrontation between US and China would be certain. The US might run out of spare parts after two weeks of fighting ;-) , and there are no businessmen in China willing to deliver in defiance of their government (as US patriots would). >w.. >--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- Groetjes Albert -- -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert(a)spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst |