From: Jon Smirl Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:55:58 -0400
After talking to representatives of both companies, it seems that the patent system has completely perverted the IP situation between them. But are staying secret because of fear of being sued by the other for infringement. This is exactly the opposite of what full disclosure of patents was supposed to achieve.
I wish they could just get together and agree not to sue each other over stupid things like register designs and programming models. The designs are horrible on both cards due to accumulation of historical cruft. Save the lawsuits for the core of the engines if you really have to sue each other.
From: Jon Smirl
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 23:55:58 -0400
After talking to representatives of both companies, it seems that the
patent system has completely perverted the IP situation between them.
But are staying secret because of fear of being sued by the other for
infringement. This is exactly the opposite of what full disclosure of
patents was supposed to achieve.
I wish they could just get together and agree not to sue each other
over stupid things like register designs and programming models. The
designs are horrible on both cards due to accumulation of historical
cruft. Save the lawsuits for the core of the engines if you really
have to sue each other.
--
Jon Smirl
MacOs X I find a pain to use with many different documents open in several different applications - you can switch between programs easily, but then have to use whatever scheme that program uses for switching windows (which may or may not conform to the UI guidelines).
Software is the most complicated thing man has ever created. It isn't surprising that the Patent Office struggles.
Not so much the patent office, but the software authors. Exactly because software is so complex, a single product can easily violate hundreds of patents. There is a point where the overhead of license negotiations, aborted product launches and lawsuits completely erases any potential benefits the patent system could have in a particular field.
It's indeed also a description of knowledge. It's not a description of purely mathematical or logic knowledge though, unlike a computer program.
So when you patent a machine, do you patent an existing machine that you have already built, or the way in which it works (its blueprint)?
You usually patent both, one process and one product claim (at least in Europe). The former to sue people who use it, the latter to sue people who build and sell it.
Then the question comes - does it make sense for someone to have exclusive rights to a series of actions? Does this constitute a patentable "process"?
Processes/methods can be patentable, but that depends on the nature of the method. And then you get into things like Diamond vs Diehr, where the process was "curing rubber", but the only improvement was regularly measuring temperature of rubber while in the press to be able recalculate the time the rubber should still left in the press. The Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 decision, decided it was not just some mathematics, but a patentable process improvement.
In case of computer programs capable of being run on a regular desktop computer, those steps are by definition just plain mathematics. And mathematics are not patentable subject matter.
There is always going to be a gray zone like the Diamond vs Diehr case (and in practice, most people won't care whether or not that is patentable, since it does not affect general purpose computing in any way), but unfortunately the logic followed in that and other cases has been extended ad absurdum, so that basically as soon as a computer executes something it's no longer considered to be pure mathematics, but a patentable process.
Exactly, a description of -- but not knowledge itself. It's a method.
It's a description of a method, and a mathematical method at that. Mathematical methods are not (should not be) patentable, even if their description is machine-readable.
Patents aren't on objects but on methods of producing objects.
They can apply to both objects and methods (at least in Europe you have both process and product claims).
The description is one incarnation, one particular implementation of that knowledge.
You don't "implement knowledge in descriptions" (just like you don't implement a plot in a story), and you also cannot patent "knowledge". You patent "inventions". There are various steps to go from knowledge to an invention, but a description of knowledge is not a form of an invention.
After all, if the description was an implementation, then spreading the description (or even the patent itself!) would infringe the patent as well in case of product claims, and would otherwise probably constitute contributory infringement.
No. What he's saying is that I could compile your program with something that does VHDL or other hardware language and get a peice of paper or circuit itself that is a METHOD for creating the specified output. The result is just another expression of a peice of knowledge, and is (again) copyrightable and/or patentable under current law.
You're right that this is how the law is currently interpreted, but this discussion is not just about that (otherwise we can all just say "Software patents are allowed by the Supreme Court's case law in the US and by the European Patent Office's case law in Europe. Period.").
At least they argument why they think there are differences, while you don't provide any argument at all. The point is that you should read their arguments.
All the arguments for hardware patents can be made for software patents.
All the arguments against hardware patents can be made against software patents.
To object to one but not the other is inconsistent
Yes, it's really annoying, this inconsistent Federal Trade Commission, saying that patents do not have the same effects in all industries. In a sense, you're somewhat right, because they note that patents have little effects as driver of innovation in the semiconductor industry too.
Or maybe the National Research Council, claiming that the software industry is quite different from traditional industry sectors for various reasons.
No. An implementation in software of some idea (such as adding numbers) is, on a base level, not theoretically different than an implementation in hardware. Whether you do it with levers and cogs, pipes of water, an abacus, or electrical impulses controlled by words is irrelevant. Software is an application of knowledge, just like any of these other things, it is not knowledge itself.
It's a description of knowledge. Whether you write down a description of an algorithm in English or in C, on a floppy or in a book, doesn't matter. It just happens that if you restrict yourself to some particular syntax and grammar, it's easier to get a machine to parse what you've written down.
The "hardware implementation" in that case already happened by the person who created the microprocessor, since it was designed to be able to execute any kind of mathematics you throw at it.
If you implement it using cogs or on a chip, in theory the construction of this chip or with the cogs might be patentable, but the algorithm you've implemented shouldn't be. In case of software, it's not the implementation/description that's patented (that's covered by copyright), but the again the algorithm itself. Simply describing an algorithm in a particular way should not change its patentability.
free/opensource software developers shouldn't be affected by patents at all, companys that make profit should pay eachother for them. simple and clean without any hooks.
There are plenty of companies which develop FLOSS, individual FLOSS developers that make money developing FLOSS, and end users avoiding spending money on software by using FLOSS.
sure having no patents at all would be a nice bliss, but if you invent something that nobody in the universe would have figured out in the next 25 years, would you like to be uncredited for inventing it ?
You seem to think patents are some kind of reward or a natural right. They are not. They are just a tool available to government economic policy makers, which they can use to correct the free market if it doesn't work things out on its own for some reason.
if gnu people would use the idea to make some free stuff, i wouldn't mind. if microsoft would use it in IE , i'd definitely like to receive some coverage for my efforts in inventing it.
Patents, just like taxes, don't have anything to do with what you personally would like or not, but are only their to serve the public interest.
I tried to explain that in this post and its follow-ups. Basically, I think the reason the US gets so much crap is because it is going at introducing democracy in such an extremely clumsy way that it seems to me it's actually making matter worse, not better.
In other words: I think that with the current foreign policy of the US (in general, of course there are exceptions like e.g. their pressure on Israel in the Palestine case lately), it'll take longer to get stable democracies than if they did not do a anything. In such a case, not doing anything is in fact the better option.
You may have the best intentions in the world trying to help someone from drowning by dumping a bunch of logs on the water, but if the chance that those logs hit that person on the head is much larger than the chance that they can get out of the water without you doing anything, the choice is clear.
Of course, opinions regarding whether the approach of the US does more harm than good are divided, but I hope you can appreciate that when people think it does more harm than good and actually makes the situation more explosive and dangerous, that they indeed can be giving the US flack for doing something even if they themselves do not know what would be the "right" or optimal thing to do instead (apart from just the slow, diplomatic and evolutionary/natural process like in e.g. the ex-USSR).
Re:Could you at least TRY to get the story right?
on
No EFI Support for Vista
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
If you want to create desktops which look like an large upstanding tablets (iMac): yes, I suppose.
Re:Could you at least TRY to get the story right?
on
No EFI Support for Vista
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have no idea why Apple let itself get talked into dumping a 64-bit architecture
Looking back, I distinctly remember my parents making every effort to provide a computer for me and my sibling, early on (they bought an Atari 400 for us when I was 5). Either by accident or on purpose, that single decision (and the continued follow up of purchasing newer computers as needed) shaped my future and the future of my siblings
We also had a computer (an Apple//e) from when I was quite young. I (the oldest) became a computer scientist, my brother a car mechanic, one of my sisters a (TV) director and my other sister is studying medicin. All can find their way around a computer, but I'm the only one spending lots of time in front of it.
So whether or not children are "exposed" to computers at a young age does not by definition "shape their future" (well, in a sense it does of course, but not in some "oh no, the computer made us into what we are today" kind of way).
I can understand your other remarks (although even in case he obeys neither the father nor the mother, is both a glutton a drunkard, and the elders of the village agree, it's still pretty barbaric), but not this one:
Furthermore there's nothing to say that the stoning is actually required, just that it *shall* happen
If an authority says that X shall happen, it means it is required, as in "Thou shall not kill".
In terms of the motivation for suicide bombing, I would suppose the same motivation exists in conventional warefare where soldiers are prepared to put their lives on the line for their comrades. It's just if you have a religious context whereby your life doesn't actually end, it is merely moved to another phase (with an improved impetus as a result of your action), then you are more likely to be prepared to sacrifice yourself.
Agreed. That's why I think religion not what inherently drives this people (what drives them is imho that they think they are somehow helping the people they care about), regardless of the interpretative authority that the Islamic religious leaders may have.
Yes, okay, but the bible is open to interpretation, isn't it?
Well, at least those verses are quite clear:
21:18
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19
Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20
And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
I mean you can use it to justify just about anything.
That's true, and that's also what happens in practice:)
And, just as the commandments are direct communication from God, the Koran is supposed to have a similar providence.
I suppose that is why it is so easy for the Mullahs to raise volunteers for suicide missions.
I really have a very hard time to believe that this is the main reason. It may make their "job" easier, but as I mentioned in a post in another thread, if people think they can serve their community, friends and family better by blowing themselves up than by staying and taking care of them, I'm convinced there's more to it than just religion.
And what proof do you have that Hitler was an atheist? Or that his atheism was the excuse
I nowhere said that Hitler did those things because he was an atheist. I simply said that you do not need a Holy Book to use as an excuse to do horrible things, i.e. that in case you are an atheist and therefore cannot use some $deity to hide behind, you'll find other reasons if you really want to commit those atrocities. Regarding Hitler's atheism, apparently I remembered wrong.
Atheism isn't, you can be religious and be a nazi.
Of course you can be, just like you can also be an anonymous idiot and atheist at the same time. Where did I claim you can't be? .
So stop with the atheism bashing, we are better then you, just face it.
This is just too funny. I am an atheist, but I by no means think I'm better than anyone else for that reason.
here are calls within the Koran for the killing of infidels and calls for the faithfull to live in peace with them depending in which phase of the prophet's life they were written. But isn't the Koran the direct word of God? Surely, then, it's immutable? Presumably God does not keep changing his mind?
There are words in the Bible that call for stoning your own children if they disobey you (Deuteronomy 21:18). If you look for an excuse, you will always find one, regardless of whether you are Christian, Muslim or atheist (Hitler, anyone?). Religion is just a (ab)used tool in cases like this, it's not some faith which in itself turns peaceful people into mindless killing machines.
Slashdot Mirror
I still remember moving my NES controller up in the air with every jump in Super Mario Bros the first few days (weeks?) I played it :)
Previously, they used other arguments:
Not so much the patent office, but the software authors. Exactly because software is so complex, a single product can easily violate hundreds of patents. There is a point where the overhead of license negotiations, aborted product launches and lawsuits completely erases any potential benefits the patent system could have in a particular field.
If you haven't already, you should really consider a job in politics :)
In case of computer programs capable of being run on a regular desktop computer, those steps are by definition just plain mathematics. And mathematics are not patentable subject matter.
There is always going to be a gray zone like the Diamond vs Diehr case (and in practice, most people won't care whether or not that is patentable, since it does not affect general purpose computing in any way), but unfortunately the logic followed in that and other cases has been extended ad absurdum, so that basically as soon as a computer executes something it's no longer considered to be pure mathematics, but a patentable process.
After all, if the description was an implementation, then spreading the description (or even the patent itself!) would infringe the patent as well in case of product claims, and would otherwise probably constitute contributory infringement.
You're right that this is how the law is currently interpreted, but this discussion is not just about that (otherwise we can all just say "Software patents are allowed by the Supreme Court's case law in the US and by the European Patent Office's case law in Europe. Period.").At least they argument why they think there are differences, while you don't provide any argument at all. The point is that you should read their arguments.
And by changing "foo" to "bombing innocent people for no reason", it's immediately clear that it's a BS argument if not substantiated.
Or maybe the National Research Council, claiming that the software industry is quite different from traditional industry sectors for various reasons.
Or maybe the Max Planck and Fraunhofer Institutes? (the latter even own some patents on mp3 compression)
The "hardware implementation" in that case already happened by the person who created the microprocessor, since it was designed to be able to execute any kind of mathematics you throw at it.
If you implement it using cogs or on a chip, in theory the construction of this chip or with the cogs might be patentable, but the algorithm you've implemented shouldn't be. In case of software, it's not the implementation/description that's patented (that's covered by copyright), but the again the algorithm itself. Simply describing an algorithm in a particular way should not change its patentability.
I apologise, I missed the "Linux" in your post. My answer was for Mac OS X. I can't find a similar parameter on the Linux fcntl man page either.
The closest I can find is to mmap the file and to use madvise afterwards to indicate how you will use it (like MADV_DONTNEED)
man fcntl -> F_NOCACHE
In other words: I think that with the current foreign policy of the US (in general, of course there are exceptions like e.g. their pressure on Israel in the Palestine case lately), it'll take longer to get stable democracies than if they did not do a anything. In such a case, not doing anything is in fact the better option.
You may have the best intentions in the world trying to help someone from drowning by dumping a bunch of logs on the water, but if the chance that those logs hit that person on the head is much larger than the chance that they can get out of the water without you doing anything, the choice is clear.
Of course, opinions regarding whether the approach of the US does more harm than good are divided, but I hope you can appreciate that when people think it does more harm than good and actually makes the situation more explosive and dangerous, that they indeed can be giving the US flack for doing something even if they themselves do not know what would be the "right" or optimal thing to do instead (apart from just the slow, diplomatic and evolutionary/natural process like in e.g. the ex-USSR).
If you want to create desktops which look like an large upstanding tablets (iMac): yes, I suppose.
So whether or not children are "exposed" to computers at a young age does not by definition "shape their future" (well, in a sense it does of course, but not in some "oh no, the computer made us into what we are today" kind of way).
This review is quite a bit more positive.