To achieve a patentable technical effect you have to influence physical or chemical state of the nature beyond changing the states of a given machine. So something that has technical effect has to be built (a not used like a computer or network) in a unique way. Each piece of code has a technical effect on the machine that runs it, but the states are made possible by the machine, therefore it is a case of use and no new and innovative way of achieving technical effects.
no LZW will ever be excluded from patentability because you cannot patent anything that is only code, algorithm or formula
Article 4a
Exclusions from patentability:
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.
New version of M$ Office. They plan to cut all backwards compatibility in order to implements their DRM-stuff in office2003.
again some monopol-driven combination of two different software products (office/drm) in order to lock out competitors and have a possibility to argue against GNU-linux/OO-desktop usage.
therefore another reason NOT to upgrade to the new version
isn't it possible to run eclispe under blackdown java (or why is a patented api more free than an open source java implementation) and what about the \. article about running eclispse unde gcj (i think we could call gnu free)
Slashdot Mirror
To achieve a patentable technical effect you have to influence physical or chemical state of the nature beyond changing the states of a given machine.
So something that has technical effect has to be built (a not used like a computer or network) in a unique way.
Each piece of code has a technical effect on the machine that runs it, but the states are made possible by the machine, therefore it is a case of use and no new and innovative way of achieving technical effects.
no LZW will ever be excluded from patentability because you cannot patent anything that is only code, algorithm or formula
Article 4a
Exclusions from patentability:
A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as making a technical contribution merely because it involves the use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus. Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical interactions between a program and the computer, network or other programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.
New version of M$ Office. They plan to cut all backwards compatibility in order to implements their DRM-stuff in office2003.
again some monopol-driven combination of two different software products (office/drm) in order to lock out competitors and have a possibility to argue against GNU-linux/OO-desktop usage.
therefore another reason NOT to upgrade to the new version
isn't it possible to run eclispe under blackdown java (or why is a patented api more free than an open source java implementation) and what about the \. article about running eclispse unde gcj (i think we could call gnu free)