The OSDL project will create more documentation on prior art, thereby in theory reducing the number of truly bad patents that are issued when prior art exists. Had the OSDL project been in place already, it may have stopped the Eolas and other patents before they were ever granted. How is that bad?
Stallman is sticking his head in the sand and wishing that software patents would go away. The OSDL project is trying to improve software patents by making sure that only truly novel patents get issued. Software patents are here to stay and the OSDL project is important to help improve the quality of these patents.
...if someone suspects you of infinging their software patent, but you claim closed source, trade secret status, how can they prove you infringed...
First, you send them a letter stating that you think they are infringing on your patent xyz. If they refuse to cooperate, then you take them to court and, provided you survive pre-trial motions to dismiss, etc., then during the legal discovery process, you get to look at their stuff and prove your case.
All that said, it is not usually so difficult. Many software patents involve methods and steps that should be easily identifiable in an infringing application without having to tear it apart.
Spoken like a person who has never experienced a truly brilliant professor who has spent his life researching a single topic.
I went to a large state school and never had any such professors. If I even only had one or two courses with professors like that, I would probably feel very differently about college. As it is, it seems like the vast majority of colleges are just high school v2.0 (same boring stuff, more party).
Good for you. Now back to our original conversation. Could you supersize it please?
Give it a rest. College dropouts can do just fine. Look at Bill Gates: a college dropout is the richest man in the world. Do you seriously contend that it would have been time well spent for him to finish college?
I wonder how much life and joy this boy passed up for a 5 minutes of fame?
I serious doubt he did it for fame. These days, the degree itself means virtually nothing and the experience can be had outside of college. He wanted to get though it and get on with his life. What is wrong with that?
Hurrah he has just rushed through what could have been an amazing experience. What a schmuck!
Lighten up a bit! He can have the same life experience as you without getting himself into a decade of debt or having to listen to his profs drone on about union contracts.
I'm so thankful I had those 4 years and that environment as an incubator to figure out who I was, who I wanted to be and to become who I am today.
Sounds like your college experience was worthwhile. For me, and many I know, it was not. It did nothing to equip me for the real world or workforce. It felt like an extension of high school. I left college without knowing anything more about what I wanted to do than when I started. I am very successful now, but I am not doing what I studied in college. I hear basically the same thing from many others.
As for this kid getting through in a year. Good for him. It sounds like he already knows what he wants to do. If he wants to skip the college experience and move on, good for him. He will still learn life's lessons.
Yes because that's exactly what University is all about! This crafty liberals, sneaking into higher education with those Phd's just to corrupt the youth.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this was certainly my experience. The professors (at least the tenured ones) only seemed to want to talk about supporting the teachers union and encourage us to vote democrat/union/liberal.
Having half of your credits come from freshman level courses doesn't seem the most appropriate method to getting an eduation.
Why not? If he did the work and got good grades, then he should get on with the rest of his life. Should he hang around for the highly overrated "college experience", where he can waste a bunch of time and money and not learn anything?
...but it sounds like he was there merely for the credential. Simply to get the degree.
This seems like an entirely reasonable approach. Get the degree and get on with your life. What is wrong with that? The "college experience" is mostly overrated anyway, so why even bother with it?
The legal demands on monopolies is (have to be) stronger than on smaller players.
True, but that does not automatically make every restriction on a monopoly make sense. I am kind of upset that, not only do I have to buy Windows, then I also have to buy protection for it. It is perfectly reasonable for Microsoft to include appropriate protection in the product.
The antivirus market was started by weaknesses in the operating systems. If the os vendors now close these weaknesses, we will all be better off. If it also means that Norton and the others end up going away, I will not shed a tear for them.
Can I patent the concept of a car that gets 200 miles per gallon or am I patenting the particular means by which my engine gets 200 mpg?
In general, it is the latter. In most cases, you are patenting the particular novel, useful and non-obvious elements of the engine that enables it to get good gas mileage. There is however a type of claim that you can put in a patent called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)#Means- plus-function_claim>means plus function claim, where the claim is based on the function of a device rather than its actual structure. In the Netflix context, they might have a claim: "means for mailing a DVD to a person", this is probably a bit overbroad, but the idea is that in the specification, they might talk about all the different types of ways that it can be mailed and then just claim that their process uses any means for mailing. You could probably get something like that through the http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm>USPTO, because the means for mailing are fairly well understood and known. However, in your high MPG engine concept, just because you have one particular way to achieve it, you could not simply claim "means for getting a 200mpg engine" you may have one way to do it, but there may be others. There is no hard rule about when a means plus function claim will be allowed and when it will be denied.
For Amazon's one click, they are probably claiming the process where the user just click's on a button once, and the system goes and gets their default credit card, mailing address and other preferences without confirming anything with the user. If this is what Amazon has patented, then it would be very difficult for you to find a way around it.
Imagine if McDonalds had patented drive through food.
Provided that no one else had done it before, I believe that it would be patentable. You could have apparatus claims for the menu display with speaker and mic for ordering and maybe for the drive up window itself and method claims for taking the order and delivering the food, etc.
There may be a point where if everyone patented everything that was patentable that something bad might result, but I don't see that it would be an overall long term bad thing because people would be really motivated to come up with great ideas and patent them for all the world to see with the USPTO. After 20 years, then everyone can use the ideas for free. I think this is why the American system is best; inventors get rewarded and everyone can benefit.
Since the 1952 Patent Act, business methods have been, and should have been, subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method.
Since then business method patents have become very common in the US and around the world.
can't Blockbuster sue Netflix for renting movies period?
Even if Blockbuster had invented the general concept of movie rentals, unless they actually patented it, then the answer is no. If they did not patent it, then they have no rights.
On the other hand, business methods are patentable and, provided that the Netflix patent holds up, which I suspect it will, Netflix is likely to prevail.
The comment above that phone companies will become "exclusive DSL broadband providers" is nonsense. They are already they exclusive providers of DSL broadband. The only reason that non-phone companies can appear to offer DSL is because the government is forcing the phone companies to do it. Everyone who thinks that the government forcing a business to sell something to someone else for a specified rate should move to France or China right now.
It is only through phone company deregulation that we got DSL in the first place. There is no justification for government regulation of DSL and there never was.
The average user wants either Windows or Mac OS. Linux and the rest have a perception of greater difficulty with many users. It is not at all clear that even if Microsoft stopped these practices, more people would buy another OS or MS would get less money for Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
The OSDL project will create more documentation on prior art, thereby in theory reducing the number of truly bad patents that are issued when prior art exists. Had the OSDL project been in place already, it may have stopped the Eolas and other patents before they were ever granted. How is that bad? Stallman is sticking his head in the sand and wishing that software patents would go away. The OSDL project is trying to improve software patents by making sure that only truly novel patents get issued. Software patents are here to stay and the OSDL project is important to help improve the quality of these patents.
I am sure the courts will find it in themselves to grant themselves an exception to the DMCA for discovery purposes.
First, you send them a letter stating that you think they are infringing on your patent xyz. If they refuse to cooperate, then you take them to court and, provided you survive pre-trial motions to dismiss, etc., then during the legal discovery process, you get to look at their stuff and prove your case.
All that said, it is not usually so difficult. Many software patents involve methods and steps that should be easily identifiable in an infringing application without having to tear it apart.
Give it a rest. College dropouts can do just fine. Look at Bill Gates: a college dropout is the richest man in the world. Do you seriously contend that it would have been time well spent for him to finish college?
I serious doubt he did it for fame. These days, the degree itself means virtually nothing and the experience can be had outside of college. He wanted to get though it and get on with his life. What is wrong with that?
I doubt that very much. If he finishes his plan and becomes a patent attorney, he can make a ton of money no matter how young or old he is
Lighten up a bit! He can have the same life experience as you without getting himself into a decade of debt or having to listen to his profs drone on about union contracts.
This was a California State University. I know more about the union contract than I really ever wanted to.
Sounds like your college experience was worthwhile. For me, and many I know, it was not. It did nothing to equip me for the real world or workforce. It felt like an extension of high school. I left college without knowing anything more about what I wanted to do than when I started. I am very successful now, but I am not doing what I studied in college. I hear basically the same thing from many others.
As for this kid getting through in a year. Good for him. It sounds like he already knows what he wants to do. If he wants to skip the college experience and move on, good for him. He will still learn life's lessons.
I can't speak for anyone else, but this was certainly my experience. The professors (at least the tenured ones) only seemed to want to talk about supporting the teachers union and encourage us to vote democrat/union/liberal.
Why not? If he did the work and got good grades, then he should get on with the rest of his life. Should he hang around for the highly overrated "college experience", where he can waste a bunch of time and money and not learn anything?
Amen. They sell you the "college experience" and then load you up with tons of debt. Get your degree quick and get on with your life!
This seems like an entirely reasonable approach. Get the degree and get on with your life. What is wrong with that? The "college experience" is mostly overrated anyway, so why even bother with it?
In general, it is the latter. In most cases, you are patenting the particular novel, useful and non-obvious elements of the engine that enables it to get good gas mileage. There is however a type of claim that you can put in a patent called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)#Means- plus-function_claim>means plus function claim, where the claim is based on the function of a device rather than its actual structure. In the Netflix context, they might have a claim: "means for mailing a DVD to a person", this is probably a bit overbroad, but the idea is that in the specification, they might talk about all the different types of ways that it can be mailed and then just claim that their process uses any means for mailing. You could probably get something like that through the http://www.uspto.gov/main/patents.htm>USPTO, because the means for mailing are fairly well understood and known. However, in your high MPG engine concept, just because you have one particular way to achieve it, you could not simply claim "means for getting a 200mpg engine" you may have one way to do it, but there may be others. There is no hard rule about when a means plus function claim will be allowed and when it will be denied.
For Amazon's one click, they are probably claiming the process where the user just click's on a button once, and the system goes and gets their default credit card, mailing address and other preferences without confirming anything with the user. If this is what Amazon has patented, then it would be very difficult for you to find a way around it.
For Netflix, it appears they have patented a computer based video system movie rental method. Unless someone can come up with some good prior art, like renting other things via computer, then their http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=netflix&OS =netflix&RS=netflix>patent will likely stand.
The short answer is yes. For the long answer, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_method_paten t
Provided that no one else had done it before, I believe that it would be patentable. You could have apparatus claims for the menu display with speaker and mic for ordering and maybe for the drive up window itself and method claims for taking the order and delivering the food, etc. There may be a point where if everyone patented everything that was patentable that something bad might result, but I don't see that it would be an overall long term bad thing because people would be really motivated to come up with great ideas and patent them for all the world to see with the USPTO. After 20 years, then everyone can use the ideas for free. I think this is why the American system is best; inventors get rewarded and everyone can benefit.
Up until 1998, business methods were thought to be so called unstatutory subject matter, meaning that the laws governing patents did not allow for business methods to be patented. However, in State Street Bank & Trust Company v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the court found:
Since then business method patents have become very common in the US and around the world.
The comment above that phone companies will become "exclusive DSL broadband providers" is nonsense. They are already they exclusive providers of DSL broadband. The only reason that non-phone companies can appear to offer DSL is because the government is forcing the phone companies to do it. Everyone who thinks that the government forcing a business to sell something to someone else for a specified rate should move to France or China right now. It is only through phone company deregulation that we got DSL in the first place. There is no justification for government regulation of DSL and there never was.
The average user wants either Windows or Mac OS. Linux and the rest have a perception of greater difficulty with many users. It is not at all clear that even if Microsoft stopped these practices, more people would buy another OS or MS would get less money for Windows.
300 baud?
Can all of you please stop clicking on the cdfreaks story link so I can have a chance to read it?