Jaroslav Flegr, Jan Havlíek and Jitka Hanuova-Lindova, and to David Hanauer, Naren Ramakrishnan, Lisa Seyfried, for investigating whether it is mentally hazardous for a human being to own a cat.
Did that test with a Gros Michel? Gros Michel was the primary banana in the US prior to the 1950s when a desease killed off most of the Gros Michel trees. It is larger than Chiquita Banana.
A detailed description of a process in a textbook is also enough for any skilled programmer. For Alice and Bilski you can find the steps to perform the process in any finance book. Pseudocode and flow charts don't teach anything when the process is well known. Chances are finance books have charts in them as well. If your talking about a brand new process then your not talking about a software patent. Your patenting a new business method.
I think they would of been better off ruling that performing a known process on a computer is not a new use of use of a known machine. It would of been much clearer ruling that would have had the same effect. Changing the process does not result in a new computer if the computer is a general use(turing complete) computer. They could do this without overturning prior precedent by explaining that the facts changed as software development matured. They could explain that programmers after some given date can be expected to be able turn any detailed description of a process into code without inventing anything. That their conventional steps is not novel and is obvious according to industry testimony.
I won't argue with that. The Supreme Court clearly is defining it more narrowly than the statute. I agree with SCOTUS as policy. Not sure if they are protecting the law though.
You dont' get it. I can get pseudo-code from the finance text book. Any detailed description of the process is pseudo-code. "put the bits of plastic together" is the transformation of that detailed description into actual code. A patent is just a poorly reworded description of that process. It is a description that I need some legalese to understand.
"suggesting an additional good or service... based on certain information obtained about the customer and the initial purchase" is not a 101 "process" as defined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has defined "process" as "technological process". Therefor it falls outside the statute and 103 does not apply. Even non obvious improvements that are actually novel would not apply. Your patent has to target something in the list of things in 101.
Section 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The supreme court has over the last century defined what the words in that statement mean. The word "abstract" is just shorthand for "not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or new and usefull improvement thereof" The supreme court has a very narrow and limited definition of "process" for this statute.
Patents don't disclose source code. So they don't teach a programmer how to "put the bits of plastic together". There is not enough utility in the patents. When creating a finanical application I am better off reading a textbook about finance than looking at patents. The textbook teaches the same thing but uses langauge a programmer can understand. If the patents disclosed souce code then there would be more fans. Patents could become an alternative to open source. The goverment could be using patents to build a library of code that future generations can build applications off of. Instead we get lawyers poorly paraphrasing existing knowledge.
I think you mean the world wide web, web pages, and personal computers. The fundamental internet parts were invented much earlier when mainframes were connnected. For example email has its roots in the 70s. Many internet standards were first published in the 80s.
Depends on what you do. I have heard of a person the delivered sql that had no where clause. It quickly choked up all the databases. Slowed all applications enterprise wide. It caused a complete outage in a corporate application the workforce used. Took a few hours to fix during the work day. Of course they were fired. They were lucky they were not sued.
How do you revert 10,000 employees not being able to do thier job for 8 hours becasue someone pushed untested sql to production? Fear of changing code is countered by testing. If you know your changes are going to be tested there is nothing to fear. If your not testing then your going to fear changes to code.
I think it is about having a small testing budget. You have budget to test the new feature but not the budget to test the whole application. Testing the feature involves the developer and client doing a day or two of work. Testing the applications involves a team of people running several days worth of formal tests. It is purely rational to push such testing off untill you have a larger release. One problem with Agile is you never get such a release. As everything is done in smaller chuncks.
Ohh I didn't mean my statement as a bash on Microsoft. Personally I think Mojang was too small to take the game where I want it to go. Mojang was just doing incremental improvements like adding bunnies and new types of dirt. I think Microsoft could put 200 people on it and makes something on the scale of grand theft auto.
Mario and Zelda did not have stories when they came out. They had a vague goal to rescue a princess and a paragraph or two in manual that kids didn't read. The Pokemon universe only exists becuase of the card game, anime, and manga.
Why would Notch leave 1.5B in cash in Mojang. He has like 40 employees and pays the rent on 1 building. Minecraft is the 1.5B tangible asset. Mojang could sell Minecraft to another developer for 1.5B. After selling Minecraft away there isn't a way for Microsoft to make another billion off Mojang.
Unless the market has already decided that Minecraft is on the way down and the price has finally become something reasonable. Could be Notch was shopping this around for 10 billion before. I think a Minecraft game still has plenty left in it. I would purchase a version that had smaller blocks. I would purchase a version with an actual story. I would even try an Minecraft mmo.
54 million sold already. Lets assume they can sell the same amount for Minecraft 2. If they priced it at $10 they would make half a billion. They can probably make more money off DLC on the existing game. And make money off DLC for Minecraft 2. Then there is stuffed creapers and toys. They are still loosing money at 2.5 billion. Was good deal for Notch.
Software is not only mathematics. Example:
print Hello World
The above statement is speech. Now math may be used to transform that statement into 1 ands 0's. More math can transform it into a commands that cause Hello World to be printed. But the code itself exists separate from that implementation. In math there is no "hello" there is no "world". Placing hello next to world has no meaning in mathematics. This is speech.
America uses first-inventor-to-file not first to file. If the invention is already disclosed to the public you can't get a patent on it. First to file only matters when two applicants kept their inventions secret and then file patent applications. (their is a grace period after public disclosure where you can still file an application) Prior art can still invalidate patents. Applications published to GitHub publically would be prior art. Private repo's might not be.. Apps published to the app store would be prior art. An unpublished app might not be.
Making innovative software was a good way to get sued before the Supreme Court stepped in. Google had to spend more money on patents and litigation than it did on R&D. Small start ups were being squeezed by lawyers. There are about 11 million profesional software developers and another 7.5 hobiest programmers. These programmers produce code everyday. Every line of code coud be patented. Every line of code should be prior art. Do you think the patent office examines the 1.2 million apps in the Itunes app store? Does it keep up to date on GitHub's 3.4 million users? Every update, every submission is prior art. None of it is looked at. Patents on software is a bad joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Jaroslav Flegr, Jan Havlíek and Jitka Hanuova-Lindova, and to David Hanauer, Naren Ramakrishnan, Lisa Seyfried, for investigating whether it is mentally hazardous for a human being to own a cat.
You don't get it. Dogs pooing north south creates the magnetic field. Your experiment would cause the magnetic poles to shift.
Did that test with a Gros Michel? Gros Michel was the primary banana in the US prior to the 1950s when a desease killed off most of the Gros Michel trees. It is larger than Chiquita Banana.
Woosh ?
A detailed description of a process in a textbook is also enough for any skilled programmer. For Alice and Bilski you can find the steps to perform the process in any finance book. Pseudocode and flow charts don't teach anything when the process is well known. Chances are finance books have charts in them as well. If your talking about a brand new process then your not talking about a software patent. Your patenting a new business method.
I think they would of been better off ruling that performing a known process on a computer is not a new use of use of a known machine. It would of been much clearer ruling that would have had the same effect. Changing the process does not result in a new computer if the computer is a general use(turing complete) computer. They could do this without overturning prior precedent by explaining that the facts changed as software development matured. They could explain that programmers after some given date can be expected to be able turn any detailed description of a process into code without inventing anything. That their conventional steps is not novel and is obvious according to industry testimony.
I won't argue with that. The Supreme Court clearly is defining it more narrowly than the statute. I agree with SCOTUS as policy. Not sure if they are protecting the law though.
You dont' get it. I can get pseudo-code from the finance text book. Any detailed description of the process is pseudo-code. "put the bits of plastic together" is the transformation of that detailed description into actual code. A patent is just a poorly reworded description of that process. It is a description that I need some legalese to understand.
"suggesting an additional good or service... based on certain information obtained about the customer and the initial purchase" is not a 101 "process" as defined by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has defined "process" as "technological process". Therefor it falls outside the statute and 103 does not apply. Even non obvious improvements that are actually novel would not apply. Your patent has to target something in the list of things in 101.
Section 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The supreme court has over the last century defined what the words in that statement mean.
The word "abstract" is just shorthand for "not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or new and usefull improvement thereof"
The supreme court has a very narrow and limited definition of "process" for this statute.
Patents don't disclose source code. So they don't teach a programmer how to "put the bits of plastic together". There is not enough utility in the patents. When creating a finanical application I am better off reading a textbook about finance than looking at patents. The textbook teaches the same thing but uses langauge a programmer can understand. If the patents disclosed souce code then there would be more fans. Patents could become an alternative to open source. The goverment could be using patents to build a library of code that future generations can build applications off of. Instead we get lawyers poorly paraphrasing existing knowledge.
I think you mean the world wide web, web pages, and personal computers. The fundamental internet parts were invented much earlier when mainframes were connnected. For example email has its roots in the 70s. Many internet standards were first published in the 80s.
Depends on what you do. I have heard of a person the delivered sql that had no where clause. It quickly choked up all the databases. Slowed all applications enterprise wide. It caused a complete outage in a corporate application the workforce used. Took a few hours to fix during the work day. Of course they were fired. They were lucky they were not sued.
How do you revert 10,000 employees not being able to do thier job for 8 hours becasue someone pushed untested sql to production? Fear of changing code is countered by testing. If you know your changes are going to be tested there is nothing to fear. If your not testing then your going to fear changes to code.
I think it is about having a small testing budget. You have budget to test the new feature but not the budget to test the whole application. Testing the feature involves the developer and client doing a day or two of work. Testing the applications involves a team of people running several days worth of formal tests. It is purely rational to push such testing off untill you have a larger release. One problem with Agile is you never get such a release. As everything is done in smaller chuncks.
Ohh I didn't mean my statement as a bash on Microsoft. Personally I think Mojang was too small to take the game where I want it to go. Mojang was just doing incremental improvements like adding bunnies and new types of dirt. I think Microsoft could put 200 people on it and makes something on the scale of grand theft auto.
Mario and Zelda did not have stories when they came out. They had a vague goal to rescue a princess and a paragraph or two in manual that kids didn't read. The Pokemon universe only exists becuase of the card game, anime, and manga.
Why would Notch leave 1.5B in cash in Mojang. He has like 40 employees and pays the rent on 1 building. Minecraft is the 1.5B tangible asset. Mojang could sell Minecraft to another developer for 1.5B. After selling Minecraft away there isn't a way for Microsoft to make another billion off Mojang.
Unless the market has already decided that Minecraft is on the way down and the price has finally become something reasonable. Could be Notch was shopping this around for 10 billion before. I think a Minecraft game still has plenty left in it. I would purchase a version that had smaller blocks. I would purchase a version with an actual story. I would even try an Minecraft mmo.
The mobile price is under $10. A $60 price would sell less copies than a $10 version. Also $10 makes the math easy. :)
54 million sold already. Lets assume they can sell the same amount for Minecraft 2. If they priced it at $10 they would make half a billion. They can probably make more money off DLC on the existing game. And make money off DLC for Minecraft 2. Then there is stuffed creapers and toys. They are still loosing money at 2.5 billion. Was good deal for Notch.
Software is not only mathematics. Example:
print Hello World
The above statement is speech. Now math may be used to transform that statement into 1 ands 0's. More math can transform it into a commands that cause Hello World to be printed. But the code itself exists separate from that implementation. In math there is no "hello" there is no "world". Placing hello next to world has no meaning in mathematics. This is speech.
Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.
America uses first-inventor-to-file not first to file. If the invention is already disclosed to the public you can't get a patent on it. First to file only matters when two applicants kept their inventions secret and then file patent applications. (their is a grace period after public disclosure where you can still file an application) Prior art can still invalidate patents. Applications published to GitHub publically would be prior art. Private repo's might not be.. Apps published to the app store would be prior art. An unpublished app might not be.
Making innovative software was a good way to get sued before the Supreme Court stepped in. Google had to spend more money on patents and litigation than it did on R&D. Small start ups were being squeezed by lawyers. There are about 11 million profesional software developers and another 7.5 hobiest programmers. These programmers produce code everyday. Every line of code coud be patented. Every line of code should be prior art. Do you think the patent office examines the 1.2 million apps in the Itunes app store? Does it keep up to date on GitHub's 3.4 million users? Every update, every submission is prior art. None of it is looked at. Patents on software is a bad joke.