Bitlaw's summary leads the reader to believe that (1) the Court ruled that the only non-novel part of the claims was the software and (2) the Court ruled the patent valid. In both instances it misleads the reader. The Supreme Court did not examine novelty in the Diehr case, nor did they rule whether the patent should be accepted or rejected. They only advised as to whether the patent could be rejected solely on the basis of being nonstatutory. Fault lies less with the Supreme Court and more with people who twist their opinion.
Mathematical algorithms are not literary in nature, but they aren't statutory material either. You're confused when you talk about the existence of a statute that says otherwise. You're probably thinking of one or two lower-court opinions that are reputed to view software that way. I haven't looked as deeply into those opinions yet, just the higher-court decisions.
I'm vehemently against software patents, but I'm not really ready to dismantle the patent system as a whole. In some fields the R&D costs are high enough that I can see society benefiting from trading a temporary monopoly for publication of the technology. Software is obviously different. I think software patents have to be taken out of the picture before you can have a good discussion about the system as a whole.
The US is not homogeneous when it comes to support of software patents. The US Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. Unfortunately a lot of people are determined to mis-read their opinions, particularly Diehr. Diehr has a section IV specifically about "Don't misread our ruling this way" describing the way their ruling is always misread.
Without that storage, the software is an idea, but once it's on a harddrive|flashdrive|internets, it's more physical, right?
But if you're going to patent software, why not patent literature?
The de jure situation in the U.S.: If someone were to submit a patent application for "Hamlet rendered in ink on paper", the patent could not be rejected only on the grounds of the literature not being statutory material for a patent (test 1). Because the ink and paper are statutory, you have to move on to tests 2 and 3, novelty and non-obviousness. Neither the ink nor the paper is novel. Nor are the ink, paper and literature combined into a whole in a novel way. Novelty in the literature doesn't count because it's not statutory. The patent is invalid based on non-novelty. This is the Diehr test, and software that essentially patents an algorithm for a general-purpose digital computer is invalid under this test.
The de facto situation in the U.S.: The USPTO gets paid according to how many applications they accept, so they are going to read the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many applications as possible. That means software patents generally get granted, and the burden of proof is on the victim to show that the patent should have been rejected.
Many of the new member states are new to capitalism and have more extreme capitalist views than the old members. This might slant the debate in favor of software patents.
What are you talking about? Capitalism is about free markets. Patents are about state-sponsored monopolies. Extreme capitalist views would slant the debate in favor of removing patents altogether, not just software patents.
There are still many officials who do not understand software patent risks, and the absence of societal benefits. Reopening the debate offers more chance to solidify opposition to the software patent push that will inevitably reappear.
If the ability for your kids to eat depended on it, somehow I think you'd think differently.
If pigs flew we would think differently too. The problem is that you're already thinking differently and pigs aren't flying. And kids' meals don't depend on robbing everybody else of their rights, which is the
only purpose software patents serve.
A hammer has a useful purpose. Patents on software for general-purpose digital computers are not like hammers. Explain why land mines are not inherently evil, and only then will you have an explanation that works for software patents too.
The US Supreme Court has always said that software for general-purpose digital computers is not statutory material for a patent. Want to accuse them of misunderstanding patents?
What made you decide to have a separate blog and gallery? Wouldn't the two be logical to combine? And why is your wife's family reading your blog but not your side of the family?
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host an exploratory meeting February 3-4, 2005 at USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, to discuss the current state of substantive patent law harmonization and possible approaches for moving harmonization forward. Harmonization of patent laws will facilitate obtaining worldwide protection, which is essential to success in the global marketplace. Talks on substantive patent law harmonization at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have been delayed until May 2005 as a result of disagreement among WIPO member states over the content of a proposed harmonization treaty and the best way to proceed with discussions.
This meeting will be an important step in getting substantive patent law harmonization back on track, noted Jon Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. Harmonization promises to bring substantial benefits, including uniform patent examination, reduced patent office workloads, and enhanced patent quality. The sooner we can agree on a basic framework, the sooner we can begin providing these benefits to patent applicants, patent offices and the public alike.
Among those invited to participate in the USPTO meeting are representatives from Canada, Australia, Japan, the European Commission, the European Patent Office and the Member States of the European Patent Convention. The meeting will be limited to government representatives only.
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. The patent is granted upon the new machine, manufacture, etc., as has been said, and not upon the idea or suggestion of the new machine. A complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required.
Arguments that a computer with a new program running in it is essentially a new machine have been rejected by the US Supreme Court, but accepted by lower courts and the USPTO. Are you confused yet?
I would certainly hope for such influence. All software patents I've seen are invalid under US Supreme Court precedent, but the USPTO and lower courts seem really confused.
Perhaps you've been asleep when every other software package releases updates/bug-fixes/security patched.
Bzzst. BRL'sdefine-input syntax bypassed the whole register_globals mess. A similar syntax could have been used in PHP to give some of the register_globals simplicity without the security holes. The PHP community can talk about high horses when it overcomes its own NIH syndrome and starts copying good ideas from elsewhere.
For 7-10 year development, a 20 year patent seems reasonable to me. For software (assuming there is actual legislation making them patentable, as opposed to misguided lower court decisions as we have now), the right patent duration would be about 4 days.
Patents provide a monopoly much moreso than copyright. Investors love monopolies because they're so predictable. Investment gets awfully messy and complicated once competition enters the game. The free market is the enemy of the investor, and software patents help keep the free market at bay.
Patents on algorithms only came about by the USPTO and lower courts thumbing their nose at the clear precedent of the US Supreme Court. There is no such thing as a fairly patented algorithm until such time as the EU legalizes them.
No you don't. You could look more carefully at what I wrote. You aren't the only one to miss the word "might" in my subject line -- others also mistook my posting in that way. However, those others at least understood that the comparison wasn't between digital and non-digital.
I never said DSLR wasn't for anybody. Sheesh; my post was short and not written in Flash. People have little excuse for missing parts of it.
If I had a living room, bedroom or bathroom that measured 19" or less diagonally, you can bet I would fill it up to the walls.
Go to a newsstand and check how many publications use 30% whitespace on their pages. It's just not practical to do that when your purpose is to present informative articles.
Sites that use tons of whitespace think of themselves as museum walls. That's not even appropriate for most photo sites. Think more in terms of a family photo album. You put several photos on one page so people can quickly flip through and find the ones they're interested in.
Slashdot Mirror
Bitlaw's summary leads the reader to believe that (1) the Court ruled that the only non-novel part of the claims was the software and (2) the Court ruled the patent valid. In both instances it misleads the reader. The Supreme Court did not examine novelty in the Diehr case, nor did they rule whether the patent should be accepted or rejected. They only advised as to whether the patent could be rejected solely on the basis of being nonstatutory. Fault lies less with the Supreme Court and more with people who twist their opinion.
Mathematical algorithms are not literary in nature, but they aren't statutory material either. You're confused when you talk about the existence of a statute that says otherwise. You're probably thinking of one or two lower-court opinions that are reputed to view software that way. I haven't looked as deeply into those opinions yet, just the higher-court decisions.
I'm vehemently against software patents, but I'm not really ready to dismantle the patent system as a whole. In some fields the R&D costs are high enough that I can see society benefiting from trading a temporary monopoly for publication of the technology. Software is obviously different. I think software patents have to be taken out of the picture before you can have a good discussion about the system as a whole.
The US is not homogeneous when it comes to support of software patents. The US Supreme Court repeatedly ruled that software for a general-purpose digital computer is not statutory material for a patent. Unfortunately a lot of people are determined to mis-read their opinions, particularly Diehr. Diehr has a section IV specifically about "Don't misread our ruling this way" describing the way their ruling is always misread.
The de jure situation in the U.S.: If someone were to submit a patent application for "Hamlet rendered in ink on paper", the patent could not be rejected only on the grounds of the literature not being statutory material for a patent (test 1). Because the ink and paper are statutory, you have to move on to tests 2 and 3, novelty and non-obviousness. Neither the ink nor the paper is novel. Nor are the ink, paper and literature combined into a whole in a novel way. Novelty in the literature doesn't count because it's not statutory. The patent is invalid based on non-novelty. This is the Diehr test, and software that essentially patents an algorithm for a general-purpose digital computer is invalid under this test.
The de facto situation in the U.S.: The USPTO gets paid according to how many applications they accept, so they are going to read the law in such a way as to be able to accept as many applications as possible. That means software patents generally get granted, and the burden of proof is on the victim to show that the patent should have been rejected.
There are still many officials who do not understand software patent risks, and the absence of societal benefits. Reopening the debate offers more chance to solidify opposition to the software patent push that will inevitably reappear.
A hammer has a useful purpose. Patents on software for general-purpose digital computers are not like hammers. Explain why land mines are not inherently evil, and only then will you have an explanation that works for software patents too.
The US Supreme Court has always said that software for general-purpose digital computers is not statutory material for a patent. Want to accuse them of misunderstanding patents?
OK, software patents are not inherently evil. People could choose never to enforce any of them ever.
Software patents are currently evil, including the ones that IBM has promised not to enforce against free software.
What made you decide to have a separate blog and gallery? Wouldn't the two be logical to combine? And why is your wife's family reading your blog but not your side of the family?
I would certainly hope for such influence. All software patents I've seen are invalid under US Supreme Court precedent, but the USPTO and lower courts seem really confused.
You make a lot of good points, but if you think that and endless parade of security problems is going to make PHP any less popular, you're mistaken.
Java serialization and deserialization aren't vulnerable to such attacks, and neither is Scheme's read/write. BRL users needn't worry.
For 7-10 year development, a 20 year patent seems reasonable to me. For software (assuming there is actual legislation making them patentable, as opposed to misguided lower court decisions as we have now), the right patent duration would be about 4 days.
FOSDEM: Free and Open source Software Developers' European Meeting
Patents provide a monopoly much moreso than copyright. Investors love monopolies because they're so predictable. Investment gets awfully messy and complicated once competition enters the game. The free market is the enemy of the investor, and software patents help keep the free market at bay.
Patents on algorithms only came about by the USPTO and lower courts thumbing their nose at the clear precedent of the US Supreme Court. There is no such thing as a fairly patented algorithm until such time as the EU legalizes them.
You need to try different light levels, giving your iris time to change its aperture accordingly.
No you don't. You could look more carefully at what I wrote. You aren't the only one to miss the word "might" in my subject line -- others also mistook my posting in that way. However, those others at least understood that the comparison wasn't between digital and non-digital.
I never said DSLR wasn't for anybody. Sheesh; my post was short and not written in Flash. People have little excuse for missing parts of it.
If I had a living room, bedroom or bathroom that measured 19" or less diagonally, you can bet I would fill it up to the walls.
Go to a newsstand and check how many publications use 30% whitespace on their pages. It's just not practical to do that when your purpose is to present informative articles.
Sites that use tons of whitespace think of themselves as museum walls. That's not even appropriate for most photo sites. Think more in terms of a family photo album. You put several photos on one page so people can quickly flip through and find the ones they're interested in.