So you're saying if I develop a new encryption algorithm that is 100 times better than anything out there (a real breakthrough), I shouldn't be entitled to you not ripping it off? Why? Why give invention protection to every other science, but not here? Why has every other area of tech. roundly benefited from patents, but the/. community thinks the computer sciences are somehow "Special."
I'm saying a computer running software is a machine, and other machines that do interesting things are patentable, why discriminate against a machine that does interesting things due to interesting software?
Obviously because they're perceived as having value, to the infinite shagrin of 99% of slashdot's userbase, which for some reason thinks they have no value.
But you admit a special purpose machine is patentable, right? A computer running software is a special purpose machine that does things. Software "per se" is not patentable in the US or EU. Embodied on something, or in something, and it is.
It's in the USof A. Even w/ everything as screwed up as it is, we've got more software companies than the EU can dream of, and bigger/more significant too. A company developing software IP would be insane to invest in Europe because they're anti-patent. Unless they're open source and don't care. These european weenies can have all the anti-patent days they want -- just encourages more software tech to locate here.
>> "Apple appears to be taking ideas from commercial software already being sold"
US patent law gives 1 year from 1st sale to file a patent app, so the implication behind this quote from the article is wrong on its face, ie a co. can commercialize all they want and delay filing, so long as they file by the 1 yr anniversary of the 1st sale.
And as was already eluded to in some earlier posts, this patent claims priority to other applications. Bottom line: this is a non-story unless somebody can show the idea being claimed was around before Jan. 8, 2006.
And, of course, in the US you've got a year after public disclosure or sale to actually file the patent, so the best prior art would be > 1 yr. earlier than the earliest claim of priority, so Jan 8, 2006. To put it another way, unless somebody is saying Apple had a public disclosure of this thing (or sale) before Jan 8, 2006, there is really nothing to this story.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a lot of thinking you put into that.
So you're saying if I develop a new encryption algorithm that is 100 times better than anything out there (a real breakthrough), I shouldn't be entitled to you not ripping it off? Why? Why give invention protection to every other science, but not here? Why has every other area of tech. roundly benefited from patents, but the /. community thinks the computer sciences are somehow "Special."
Huh? They can do *that* for a lot less... but your comment is off-point. The main post here was stupid enough to say we should do away w/ all patents.
I'm saying a computer running software is a machine, and other machines that do interesting things are patentable, why discriminate against a machine that does interesting things due to interesting software?
Obviously because they're perceived as having value, to the infinite shagrin of 99% of slashdot's userbase, which for some reason thinks they have no value.
REmind me what the benefit would be for pharma co's to invest $1billion + for new drugs that can be made generically for pennies?
But you admit a special purpose machine is patentable, right? A computer running software is a special purpose machine that does things. Software "per se" is not patentable in the US or EU. Embodied on something, or in something, and it is.
It's in the USof A. Even w/ everything as screwed up as it is, we've got more software companies than the EU can dream of, and bigger/more significant too. A company developing software IP would be insane to invest in Europe because they're anti-patent. Unless they're open source and don't care. These european weenies can have all the anti-patent days they want -- just encourages more software tech to locate here.
>> "Apple appears to be taking ideas from commercial software already being sold"
US patent law gives 1 year from 1st sale to file a patent app, so the implication behind this quote from the article is wrong on its face, ie a co. can commercialize all they want and delay filing, so long as they file by the 1 yr anniversary of the 1st sale.
And as was already eluded to in some earlier posts, this patent claims priority to other applications. Bottom line: this is a non-story unless somebody can show the idea being claimed was around before Jan. 8, 2006.
And, of course, in the US you've got a year after public disclosure or sale to actually file the patent, so the best prior art would be > 1 yr. earlier than the earliest claim of priority, so Jan 8, 2006. To put it another way, unless somebody is saying Apple had a public disclosure of this thing (or sale) before Jan 8, 2006, there is really nothing to this story.