Disclaimer: I'm equally opposed to software patents as everyone else here is, I just want to corrent some misinformation here.
I do not want to spoil the fun here, but this patent is in fact not about translucent windows, so anyone here posting about prior art in the respect is basically Off Topic.
Instead, the patent basically describes the overlays Apple has been using for certain system functions like increasing/decreasing brightness (whenever you press the corressponding buttons on the keyboard an overlay shows up, displaying the current volume, and then slowly fades away again unless you press the key again). The patent exactly describes the Apple OSDs, even if maybe in a bit of general way, so it could probably be applied to similarly behaving ordinary windows.
A comparable programm would e.g. be "xosd" and prior art would probably be best searched for in TVs and other appliances using on-screen-displays.
> a) Obtain an entire building for use for several months, and
> b) Were allowed to paint 144 windows, and
The building is scheduled to be torn down in a couple of months, so I guess this answers questions a) and b)
> c) Get the money to pay for bandwidth and electricity (somebody is paying it!)
The main cost factor AFAIK is actually replacing burnt-out bulbs.
Playing Pong there and similar actions require calling a rather high-cost telephone number where the CCC will receive a share of the income, and taking the huge (press and otherwise) echo of this project into account, it should be able to cover the costs completely.
Many people here suggested that if they pay the tax, then they legalized their copies, and consider that as some sort of joke.
Well, actually, it's that way already. Copying music and movies for private use is legal in Germany (as far as I remember it's also that way in the US), and those taxes are intended to repay the missing income to the authors (wether the _authors_ will ever receive them is another question...). The illegal thing is to publicly make other IP available (e.g. on a website) while it'd be legal if you e.g. emailed MP3s just to your friends over here.
That does not mean, though, that I'm supportive of this system, especially as in its incarnation over here it has some nice side effects: If you e.g. publish a proper CD of your own music and later on want to offer the same as MP3s on your homepage you actually have to pay GEMA (that's the organization collecting most of these "taxes") fees for publicly offering your own music for copying;-)
The one thing I would be interested in is in which way these patents would apply in Europe.
In Europe it is NOT possible to enforce patents or even file them, if:
- They cover software - software patents are only valid in the rare case that the software is part of a bigger system with an existence in real life (which basically means controlling software for robots for example) - They cover mathematical algorithms
This would actually invalidate 99% of US software patents inside Europe. There is an agreement though that patents of other countries are respected but on the other hand it is impossible to enforce US right on Europe. The agreement about patents was once created under the condition that also the rules they have to follow will one day be unified - which hadnt happened yet...
Anyway, the current situation of the law makes it impossible for an American company to enforce software patents on a company which is based in Europe...
Should the unification of the IP and patent right really come one day, I hope they will in this case finally decide against software patents...
Slashdot Mirror
Disclaimer: I'm equally opposed to software patents as everyone else here is, I just want to corrent some misinformation here.
I do not want to spoil the fun here, but this patent is in fact not about translucent windows, so anyone here posting about prior art in the respect is basically Off Topic.
Instead, the patent basically describes the overlays Apple has been using for certain system functions like increasing/decreasing brightness (whenever you press the corressponding buttons on the keyboard an overlay shows up, displaying the current volume, and then slowly fades away again unless you press the key again). The patent exactly describes the Apple OSDs, even if maybe in a bit of general way, so it could probably be applied to similarly behaving ordinary windows.
A comparable programm would e.g. be "xosd" and prior art would probably be best searched for in TVs and other appliances using on-screen-displays.
> a) Obtain an entire building for use for several months, and
> b) Were allowed to paint 144 windows, and
The building is scheduled to be torn down in a couple of months, so I guess this answers questions a) and b)
> c) Get the money to pay for bandwidth and electricity (somebody is paying it!)
The main cost factor AFAIK is actually replacing burnt-out bulbs.
Playing Pong there and similar actions require calling a rather high-cost telephone number where the CCC will receive a share of the income, and taking the huge (press and otherwise) echo of this project into account, it should be able to cover the costs completely.
Many people here suggested that if they pay the tax, then they legalized their copies, and consider that as some sort of joke.
;-)
Well, actually, it's that way already. Copying music and movies for private use is legal in Germany (as far as I remember it's also that way in the US), and those taxes are intended to repay the missing income to the authors (wether the _authors_ will ever receive them is another question...). The illegal thing is to publicly make other IP available (e.g. on a website) while it'd be legal if you e.g. emailed MP3s just to your friends over here.
That does not mean, though, that I'm supportive of this system, especially as in its incarnation over here it has some nice side effects: If you e.g. publish a proper CD of your own music and later on want to offer the same as MP3s on your homepage you actually have to pay GEMA (that's the organization collecting most of these "taxes") fees for publicly offering your own music for copying
When will we finally see a new book from you ?
The one thing I would be interested in is in
which way these patents would apply in Europe.
In Europe it is NOT possible to enforce patents or
even file them, if:
- They cover software - software patents are only
valid in the rare case that the software is part of a bigger system with an existence in real life
(which basically means controlling software for
robots for example)
- They cover mathematical algorithms
This would actually invalidate 99% of US
software patents inside Europe. There is an
agreement though that patents of other countries
are respected but on the other hand it is impossible to enforce US right on Europe. The
agreement about patents was once created under
the condition that also the rules they have to
follow will one day be unified - which hadnt happened yet...
Anyway, the current situation of the law makes
it impossible for an American company to enforce
software patents on a company which is based
in Europe...
Should the unification of the IP and patent right really come one day, I hope they will in this case finally decide against software patents...