Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: google.fr

Stories and comments across the archive that link to google.fr.

Comments · 154

  1. Please give credits to the right person by chrysalis · · Score: 2 · on 75th Anniversary of Television

    Nikola TESLA

    A lot of things wouldn't exist without the help of this very first 'hacker'.

  2. Here is prior art (28/02/1994) by AftanGustur · · Score: 2 · on Paging Eliza: Patenting IM Bots
    The Patent was filed August 22, 2000. Read the 'claims' it's important.

    Then have a look at This (Posted on Usenet 1994-02-28)

    Where is says:
    If you can access IRC you will be able to get in touch with other netfolk on the #soccer channel. Even if no-one else is there you will usually find a bot, called FootInfo, who will give you the latest results. Type '/msg FootInfo help' for details,

    This help system works with the /msg command, i.e. it's one-to-one bot-discussion.

  3. Feeling about software patent from the inside ? by koto54 · · Score: 1 · on Talk To a European Patent Examiner
    My question is : what is your feeling, from the inside, about software patent ?

    Here is the feeling from the outside.

    Software patents are a complex subject in Europe. The law itself is clear (Art 52):

    The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1: [...]
    (c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
    This decision to ban computer program from patenting was the result of a long discussion in 1973, were a lobby of industrial lawers were trying to make "computer programs" patentable. Fortunately, they didn't succeed at the time.

    But the law makers didn't want to rule out everything that use an algorithm. Just the thing that were only algorithms. So, they added (Art 52):

    (3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
    In plain english: what is not patentable is only computer programs as such. The normal understanding of this is that what is only a computer program is not patentable. But if something is already patentable, and then use as a part of it an algorithm, then the whole is patentable. But still not the bare nude algorithm.
    This understanding is confirmed by the 1973 metting notes and by the scandinavian translation of the "as such" clause.

    But the industrial lobby used this "as such" clause to brings back software patent by the backdoor. First by saying that the "as such" clause is too complicated to really understand what it means, and then by providing their view of it: a computer program that have a "further technical effect" is not a program as such. For example, in the EPO examinator's guideline, it is written:

    While "programs for computers" are included among the items listed in Art. 52(2), if the claimed subject-matter has a technical character, it is not excluded from patentability by the provisions of Art. 52(2) and (3).
    This interpretation of "as such" is written nowhere in the law. A woman from the INPI even explained me once that as long as an algorithm does have a functionnality, then it is patentable. For example, "making a dictionnary of the most frequent lines in a file and replacing thoses lines by their dictionnary index" could not be patented, but add "in order to compress the file", and then it could be patented. The example is from her.

    But the guideline go further:

    In the practice of examining computer-implemented inventions, however, it may be more appropriate for the examiner to proceed directly to the questions of novelty and inventive step, without considering beforehand the question of technical character. In assessing whether there is an inventive step, the examiner must establish an objective technical problem which has been overcome (see IV, 9.5). The solution of that problem constitutes the invention's technical contribution to the art. The presence of such a technical contribution establishes that the claimed subject-matter has a technical character and therefore is indeed an invention within the meaning of Art. 52(1).
    So, with this guideline, an examinator should not unrule software patent, but more, he should not even search for a "further technical effect".

    But the EPO have no juridictional power. That's why, when there is patent litigation, it goes in front of a national court. But EPO could not impose its views on national court. So, in every european software patent case, the court has found the software patent illegal.

    So, in order to have the Europe comply to its views, the industrial lobby, and especially our friends of the BSA, has lobbyed the European Commission to propose a new law to make software patent lawfull. My prefered line from the FAQ is about the answers they have got from a consultation he subject, and the respect they have for those answers (my emphasis):

    Many of the responses supporting a more restrictive approach than at present, with fewer patents being granted, were transmitted through an open forum set up by the "Eurolinux Alliance", a group of companies and other entities supporting the development of open source software such as Linux. Although this group numerically dominated (90%) the response, the major sectoral bodies representing the information and communication technology industries, as well as many of the Member States, all supported the approach put forward by the discussion paper.
    .

    Fortunately, our gouvernment is still opposed to the idea. But how long could it stand against Europe or industrial lobbies ?

    So, from outside, the feeling is that the EPO is defying the law, on the pressure of the industrial lobby. And in order to align the law to their views, they even lobby the European Commission.

    And you ? What is your feeling about this ? Especially from the inside of the EPO. You are somehow in the center of the whole thing. I would really like to have an opinion "from the inside".

  4. What I find most puzzing is this... by wholesomegrits · · Score: 1, Troll · on Students Seek Widespread Internet Access

    you go to a school that is not exactly a 2 year degree mill, but you cannot use google. I shall show you the way:

    Click Here. Choose the first link and read. I go to a shitty state school. It took you longer to write that bullshit Ask Slashdot than it would have to use a little common sense. Are you used to having things just handed to you?