2. Perhaps I just don't see it at that level of abstraction, but I disagree.
3. I applaud your acknowledgement. Many people simply refuse to come out and say that for whatever reason, they think software should be special. I believe that is a valid position to take. The rule is that anything under the sun created by man is patentable. I personally believe that chimeras (human/animal genomic mixes) should NOT be patentable. The PTO has recently agreed. There is a fascinating law review article that deals with chimeras. I believe it is called "Toward a Theory of Constitutional Personhood..." in the UCLA Law Review.
4. It is a mix - some I consider groundbreaking, others I consider not so groundbreaking. I personally deal with the issue by trying to keep current with my technical training and being careful to draft patents that do not claim things in the prior art. I'm not perfect, but that is my goal.
Without getting into a great deal of detailed analysis, these things generally are not patentable. Note, however, an "algorithm" that is not patentable means a mathematical algorithm, not an algorithm as commonly understood in software engineering.
If all you are doing is taking a process that can be done by hand and implementing it on a computer, that also generally is not patentable. As for the spreadsheet, I believe you are correct. However, you should know that the position that "software is not patentable" was, IMHO, a legal myth without a firm basis. The State Street Bank decision eliminated the myth and set the rule: Anything under the sun, created by man, is patentable.
Neither can I. I believe this to be a result of the fact that software is the only text that can yield functional results. A copyright covers an expression, a patent covers an apparatus or a function.
IMHO, what needs to be reformed is Congress's desire to use the PTO as a cash cow to fund other projects (Homeland Security, anyone?). The PTO rakes in cash but after Congress takes what it wants, the PTO is not left with enough to do its job properly. If those fees were not diverted, you would see an immediate, direct, and positive impact on the quality of patents that are issued.
If you are referencing Shakespeare, in particular, the "kill all the lawyers" line, I agree with you. The characters are trying to create anarchy and recognize that the way to do that is to get rid of all the lawyers because lawyers help impose order through the rule of law. Glad to see someone actually saying something nice about lawyers for a change.
What you have identified is not a problem with the patent system itself but rather a problem with the examination of patents. Simply put, the PTO could not hire enough competent examiners to properly examine patents because those people could make more money in private industry.
it is commonly accepted that there are two agencies that create revenue for the Government. The first is the IRS. The second is the USPTO. Congress siphons off ("diverts") income from user fees (application fees, time extension fees, issue fees, etc.) for other uses and does not leave the PTO enough to
A fine point: The US doesn't allow for the patenting of a mere idea either. You must show, in your application, that you have sufficienit possession of the invention by teaching a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art how to make and use the invention. This is often referred to as the "enablement" requirement. A patent that does not enable the claimed invention is invalid.
simply because you got to the patent office before I did...
The US patent system is unique in the sense that it grants a patent to the firt to INVENT, not the first to file an application. If you can prove you are the first inventor and meet the statutory requirements, you get the patent. Plain and simple. If someone else gets a patent issued first, theirs is invalidated.
I will not waste my company's money throwing money at a patent lawyer since I'd rather reinvest the money to make my ideas better and more marketable.
Your choice. However, you run the risk of being hit with a patent infringement suit for a patent that covers something you invented in-house at the same time someone else did.
My company wins in the market based on OUR ideas, execution, and market strategy, not running behind lawyers and litigation.
Patents have other uses besides litigation. Litigation is the last option. Many companies use their patents to gain access to other technologies by offering access to their own patented technology. Usually no lawsuits involved.
It says the latter, but my point is that why should one art, especially an art that has been proven to be "useful," be singled out as unworthy of patent protection?
Excuse the terse response, but your post shows a complete lack of understanding of patent law. Individual cases may highlight some problems, but they are not proof of the failure of the system as a whole.
Not true usually. Parties to a lawsuit get to see all the evidence directly unless a judge enters a protective order. Then it is usually Attorneys (except in-house counsel for the party) and outside expects only. There is no NDA - there is a protective order issued by a judge and parties can be held in contempt for violating the confidentiality provisions of the order. I don't know what the order in the IBM v. SCO case says but I would be surprised if it is not similar to this arrangement.
"No doubt, all those IP lawyers think this is a good thing..."
As an IP lawyer, and specifically a registered patent attorney who handles software patents, I could not disagree more. Courts are supposed to be PUBLIC fora so that EVERYONE can see justice being dispensed. Closing hearings and sealing files inevitably leads to suspicion that proceedings are not being conducted fairly. Therefore I am strongly FOR keeping things open.
That said, there are sometimes portions of proceedings that SHOULD be closed to the public. One example is a hearing where a defendant's trade secrets will be discussed. Most times such a discussion, or at least details of it, are not crucial to understanding the basic proeeding. A defendant should not have to lose its trade secrets merely because it chooses to defend itself in court instead of settling the case.
Take the IBM v. SCO case, for instance. SCO is trying to force IBM to hand over the source code for IBM's *NIX versions. Should SCO be able to force this? Theoretically, yes, but in that instance, SCO would have shown some more concrete proof of its claims. Having so forced IBM to turn over the source code, should SCO be able to make it public? NO. IBM has the right to protect its property and SCO should not be able to (mis)use the courts to destroy potential trade secrets of a competitor.
I have found that people who make blanket statements about what lawyers love or about the evils of intellectual property usually understand neither of those topics. Software development is (properly, I might add) now an engineering endeavor. Engineers have had to deal with patents in every field for literally hundreds of years. Software development is no different. If you think it should be otherwise, I challenge you to examine the basis for that opinion. I suspect you will find it is because you think or know that you could create a patented piece of software yourself without using anyone else's code because you have the necessary skills. In that case, you are no different from the skilled artisan in any other field. In that case, if you are against software patents, then you must be against any type of patents because it would not be fair to have a special exemption for one type of invention and not another.
Think about it. Think long. Think hard. Think critically. Then let me know what you think. Flamers - save your keystrokes. I sleep very well at night knowing I am providing a valuable service to my clients - many of then small and individual inventors who are looking at being able to actually PROFIT from their hard work BECAUSE they have a patent and not in spite of it.
I'm a long time slashdot user with plenty of karma and I normally don't post this type of stuff.
Ditto.
Roland Piquepaille has been submitting warmed over articles that link to his blog for ages now, and an INCREDIBLE number of them get posted. The usual suspects are timothy and michael (two of the weaker slashdot editors in my opinion).
Ditto.
The details of all of this I'll leave to others that care more, but it'd be nice to see slashdot get a grip on this.
I'd laugh, but I'm afraid I'd inhale too much of the smell this is generating. Why waste the goodwill this site has earned by helping to promote this guy's blog?
... for a Cascading Style Sheet that will filter out any Slashdot article that begins "Roland Piquepaille writes..." It is either that or we need a Homepage option to filter stories by submitter. It is getting to the point where I am going to ignore all stories from michael and timothy just so I can get away from RP submissions (and Hemos is a close consideration in 3rd place for this "honor").
Karma be damned - mod me down. Slashdot is usually scrupulous about disclosing any time an article deals with OSDN or another affiliate. I have no idea how many current members there are here but I have to think that the chances are pretty slim that RP is submitting about 15% of all stories. Why does he get such a disproportionately high number of submissions published, all trying to drive traffic to his blog?
Using a second finger changes the functionality of the trackpad. Does this mean people will FINALLY stop complaining about Apple shipping machines with a single button mouse, even though it has a good excuse?
Ummm... I won't harp on this but I didn't say "A closer," I said closer - as in nearer, more proximate, not as distant, etc. Meaning: I concede it is not a denial but I interpreted it as being closer to being a denial than the statement you quoted.
That isn't a denial, it is an avoidance. Although I concede that the statement about the "mother of all engineering problems" is also not a denial but it is closer.
Apple itself has called putting the G5 into a notebook "the mother of all engineering challenges." That doesn't mean that Apple hasn't overcome those challenges but...
Apple's usual policy when asked about new products is "no comment." It is unusual that Apple would expressly deny a product. Everyone KNOWS there will be a G5 notebook SOMEDAY, but ther question is WHEN? Given Apple's tremenndous stock run-up since August 2004, I think it more likely that Apple does not want premature rumours of a G5 PowerBook to cause a bubble effect on its stock price.
The linked article ITSELF acknowledged that the original source may have mistakenly typed a "5" instead of a "4." It is far more likely that the iBook and PowerBook lines will get a speed bump, most likely announced at the upcoming WWDC.
"The companies who have this project on their failed list include Hewlett-Packard, Toshiba, Intel, and Philips."
Philips? Excuse me? Philips has the Cineos LCoS TV on sale. I had the privilege of seeing a prototype and quite frankly it was an impressive piece of technology. Philips's chip design fundamentally differed from TI's and I believe also Intel's. The unit I saw had a 55 inch screen, was 18 inches deep, and weighed less than 80 pounds. The picture was the clearest and sharpest I had ever seen (studio HDTV feed - slightly better than HDTV broadcast quality, but not by that much). Quite an impressive piece of equipment, but as failures go, I guess it is, well, for lack of a better word, a failure.
I have the same config and ran the test twice. I was not affected when I had "Block Pop Up Windows" in the Safari menu checked, but WAS affected when I re-ran the test with it unchecked.
No, I never identified myself with any political party. I have 16 years of experience with Kerry as one of MY elected officials. The book comment was a joke - I don't have a book, am not planning one, and I'm glad you thought it was funny.
How easily provoked you must be to get so upset about something on a message board that didn't even refer to you personally in the first instance. Go take a deep breath. Then hold it - for about 4 years.
I know OF my representative and senators, but I know NOT what they do. What bills have these fine specimen of Political Beef sponsored on my behalf?
And I don't think that is right. We should know what are elected officials are doing. The point I was trying to make is that Kerry has not shown me that he will be any different from, or better than, Bush.
I'm not saying Bush is perfect. In fact, I beleive I laid out an example of of of his serious failings as president. What I was saying is that I believe that overall, Kerry will be worse.
It's a message board. If you want a comprehensive list and in-depth analysis, buy my book.
By the way, I'm not whining, I'm complaining about what the process has become. Your ignorance is shown by the fact that you have to resort to name-calling right off the bat.
For the record, I'm not obsessing about Kerry. I'm saying that I believe Kerry WILL BE WORSE.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Perhaps I just don't see it at that level of abstraction, but I disagree.
3. I applaud your acknowledgement. Many people simply refuse to come out and say that for whatever reason, they think software should be special. I believe that is a valid position to take. The rule is that anything under the sun created by man is patentable. I personally believe that chimeras (human/animal genomic mixes) should NOT be patentable. The PTO has recently agreed. There is a fascinating law review article that deals with chimeras. I believe it is called "Toward a Theory of Constitutional Personhood..." in the UCLA Law Review.
4. It is a mix - some I consider groundbreaking, others I consider not so groundbreaking. I personally deal with the issue by trying to keep current with my technical training and being careful to draft patents that do not claim things in the prior art. I'm not perfect, but that is my goal.
- Without getting into a great deal of detailed analysis, these things generally are not patentable. Note, however, an "algorithm" that is not patentable means a mathematical algorithm, not an algorithm as commonly understood in software engineering.
- If all you are doing is taking a process that can be done by hand and implementing it on a computer, that also generally is not patentable. As for the spreadsheet, I believe you are correct. However, you should know that the position that "software is not patentable" was, IMHO, a legal myth without a firm basis. The State Street Bank decision eliminated the myth and set the rule: Anything under the sun, created by man, is patentable.
- Neither can I. I believe this to be a result of the fact that software is the only text that can yield functional results. A copyright covers an expression, a patent covers an apparatus or a function.
IMHO, what needs to be reformed is Congress's desire to use the PTO as a cash cow to fund other projects (Homeland Security, anyone?). The PTO rakes in cash but after Congress takes what it wants, the PTO is not left with enough to do its job properly. If those fees were not diverted, you would see an immediate, direct, and positive impact on the quality of patents that are issued.If you are referencing Shakespeare, in particular, the "kill all the lawyers" line, I agree with you. The characters are trying to create anarchy and recognize that the way to do that is to get rid of all the lawyers because lawyers help impose order through the rule of law. Glad to see someone actually saying something nice about lawyers for a change.
it is commonly accepted that there are two agencies that create revenue for the Government. The first is the IRS. The second is the USPTO. Congress siphons off ("diverts") income from user fees (application fees, time extension fees, issue fees, etc.) for other uses and does not leave the PTO enough to
A fine point: The US doesn't allow for the patenting of a mere idea either. You must show, in your application, that you have sufficienit possession of the invention by teaching a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art how to make and use the invention. This is often referred to as the "enablement" requirement. A patent that does not enable the claimed invention is invalid.
The US patent system is unique in the sense that it grants a patent to the firt to INVENT, not the first to file an application. If you can prove you are the first inventor and meet the statutory requirements, you get the patent. Plain and simple. If someone else gets a patent issued first, theirs is invalidated.
I will not waste my company's money throwing money at a patent lawyer since I'd rather reinvest the money to make my ideas better and more marketable.
Your choice. However, you run the risk of being hit with a patent infringement suit for a patent that covers something you invented in-house at the same time someone else did. My company wins in the market based on OUR ideas, execution, and market strategy, not running behind lawyers and litigation.
Patents have other uses besides litigation. Litigation is the last option. Many companies use their patents to gain access to other technologies by offering access to their own patented technology. Usually no lawsuits involved.
It says the latter, but my point is that why should one art, especially an art that has been proven to be "useful," be singled out as unworthy of patent protection?
Excuse the terse response, but your post shows a complete lack of understanding of patent law. Individual cases may highlight some problems, but they are not proof of the failure of the system as a whole.
Not true usually. Parties to a lawsuit get to see all the evidence directly unless a judge enters a protective order. Then it is usually Attorneys (except in-house counsel for the party) and outside expects only. There is no NDA - there is a protective order issued by a judge and parties can be held in contempt for violating the confidentiality provisions of the order. I don't know what the order in the IBM v. SCO case says but I would be surprised if it is not similar to this arrangement.
As an IP lawyer, and specifically a registered patent attorney who handles software patents, I could not disagree more. Courts are supposed to be PUBLIC fora so that EVERYONE can see justice being dispensed. Closing hearings and sealing files inevitably leads to suspicion that proceedings are not being conducted fairly. Therefore I am strongly FOR keeping things open.
That said, there are sometimes portions of proceedings that SHOULD be closed to the public. One example is a hearing where a defendant's trade secrets will be discussed. Most times such a discussion, or at least details of it, are not crucial to understanding the basic proeeding. A defendant should not have to lose its trade secrets merely because it chooses to defend itself in court instead of settling the case.
Take the IBM v. SCO case, for instance. SCO is trying to force IBM to hand over the source code for IBM's *NIX versions. Should SCO be able to force this? Theoretically, yes, but in that instance, SCO would have shown some more concrete proof of its claims. Having so forced IBM to turn over the source code, should SCO be able to make it public? NO. IBM has the right to protect its property and SCO should not be able to (mis)use the courts to destroy potential trade secrets of a competitor.
I have found that people who make blanket statements about what lawyers love or about the evils of intellectual property usually understand neither of those topics. Software development is (properly, I might add) now an engineering endeavor. Engineers have had to deal with patents in every field for literally hundreds of years. Software development is no different. If you think it should be otherwise, I challenge you to examine the basis for that opinion. I suspect you will find it is because you think or know that you could create a patented piece of software yourself without using anyone else's code because you have the necessary skills. In that case, you are no different from the skilled artisan in any other field. In that case, if you are against software patents, then you must be against any type of patents because it would not be fair to have a special exemption for one type of invention and not another.
Think about it. Think long. Think hard. Think critically. Then let me know what you think. Flamers - save your keystrokes. I sleep very well at night knowing I am providing a valuable service to my clients - many of then small and individual inventors who are looking at being able to actually PROFIT from their hard work BECAUSE they have a patent and not in spite of it.
Who says I don't?
Ditto.
Roland Piquepaille has been submitting warmed over articles that link to his blog for ages now, and an INCREDIBLE number of them get posted. The usual suspects are timothy and michael (two of the weaker slashdot editors in my opinion).
Ditto.
The details of all of this I'll leave to others that care more, but it'd be nice to see slashdot get a grip on this.
I could not agree more.
Worth a laugh at this point though.
I'd laugh, but I'm afraid I'd inhale too much of the smell this is generating. Why waste the goodwill this site has earned by helping to promote this guy's blog?
Karma be damned - mod me down. Slashdot is usually scrupulous about disclosing any time an article deals with OSDN or another affiliate. I have no idea how many current members there are here but I have to think that the chances are pretty slim that RP is submitting about 15% of all stories. Why does he get such a disproportionately high number of submissions published, all trying to drive traffic to his blog?
Using a second finger changes the functionality of the trackpad. Does this mean people will FINALLY stop complaining about Apple shipping machines with a single button mouse, even though it has a good excuse?
Ummm ... I won't harp on this but I didn't say "A closer," I said closer - as in nearer, more proximate, not as distant, etc. Meaning: I concede it is not a denial but I interpreted it as being closer to being a denial than the statement you quoted.
That isn't a denial, it is an avoidance. Although I concede that the statement about the "mother of all engineering problems" is also not a denial but it is closer.
I wish I could mod this +10,000 - Says what needed to be said.
"The companies who have this project on their failed list include Hewlett-Packard, Toshiba, Intel, and Philips."
Philips? Excuse me? Philips has the Cineos LCoS TV on sale. I had the privilege of seeing a prototype and quite frankly it was an impressive piece of technology. Philips's chip design fundamentally differed from TI's and I believe also Intel's. The unit I saw had a 55 inch screen, was 18 inches deep, and weighed less than 80 pounds. The picture was the clearest and sharpest I had ever seen (studio HDTV feed - slightly better than HDTV broadcast quality, but not by that much). Quite an impressive piece of equipment, but as failures go, I guess it is, well, for lack of a better word, a failure.
I have the same config and ran the test twice. I was not affected when I had "Block Pop Up Windows" in the Safari menu checked, but WAS affected when I re-ran the test with it unchecked.
How easily provoked you must be to get so upset about something on a message board that didn't even refer to you personally in the first instance. Go take a deep breath. Then hold it - for about 4 years.
My problem with that is that after all this time, I don't believe that he will actually DO what he says he will do.
And I don't think that is right. We should know what are elected officials are doing. The point I was trying to make is that Kerry has not shown me that he will be any different from, or better than, Bush.
I'm not saying Bush is perfect. In fact, I beleive I laid out an example of of of his serious failings as president. What I was saying is that I believe that overall, Kerry will be worse.
By the way, I'm not whining, I'm complaining about what the process has become. Your ignorance is shown by the fact that you have to resort to name-calling right off the bat.
For the record, I'm not obsessing about Kerry. I'm saying that I believe Kerry WILL BE WORSE.