Why are many cities so interested in providing free/cheap WiFi access? Telephones and cable TV have been around much longer and you don't see cities rushing to provide free land-line phones or cable TV.
I personally don't want any of my tax dollars used to fund any free/cheap technological service to anybody. Cities should just stick to funding the police, fire, water, and grounds maintenance, i.e., the traditional stuff cities are supposed to fund.
But the sad fact is that a lot of non-tech-savvy people, i.e., people who don't know any better, will see the shiny, pretty interface and think it's better just because it looks better. So, yes, pretty (alone) does often sell (unfortunately).
You mean like this?
The only reason XP and later Windows OSs have/will have polish is because of Mac OS X. Before that, Windows looked like it was stuck in the '80s with blocky icons.
Most OSS licenses forbid to distribute any software based on the open source projet in question without the source code to the whole, whether you have made modifications or not.
Again, we're not talking about source code. Microsoft is free to look at the features of Firefox as an end-user would and copy any feature they please to exacting detail. As long as they do so without using any of Firefox's source code, it's completely legal.
As for patents, no they are not essential to protect intellectual property.
I never said they were. There are also trademarks and trade secrets that are also used to protect intellectual property, but they're irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Copyrights are.
For a computer program, copyright covers only the source code. Period. OSS licenses are based on copyright and use copyright as their legal mechanism. Again, Miscrosoft can look at Firefox's features and UI and can copy it feature for feature and there's not a damned thing Firefox's authors can do about it. If stronger protection is wanted, well that's what patents are for.
No offense, but you have no understanding of how copyright, OSS licenses, or patents work.
C++: vim, GNU make, g++, doxygen. AFAIK, there's no good, freely available C++ IDE for Linux/BSD/Solaris. (On Mac OS X, there's Xcode.) You can pretty much auto-do anything with GNU make. It's far more powerful than vanilla make.
Java: vim, GNU make, javamake, javac, javadoc, IntelliJ IDEA.
A patent could be invalidated if the "preferred embodiment" given in the description doesn't actually teach what the invention is...
Then the patent is invalid in isolation. I'm starting with the assumption that a given patent is valid. When such a patent is used in court (i.e., not in isolation, but because there's a lawsuit against an alleged infringer as in the case at hand against Apple), then, again, only the claims matter.
If Apple can show that the patent as a whole is invalid, either because of a bad description or because there's prior art, then whether Apple is infringing the claims (again, the only part that matters in a lawsuit) is moot.
Too bad we're not talking about you. We're talking about every single person who boards a plane being forced to wear shoes. Now if shoes were optional, then you could do as you please and so could I.
As for you, you're letting two isolated cases from many years ago significantly influence your thinking. So, if you've seen an auto accident, then you don't drive?
One of the most common species, Ancylostoma duodenale (an-cy-CLO-sto-ma doe-AH-den-al), is found in southern Europe, northern Africa, northern Asia, and parts of South America. A second species, Necator americanus (ne-KAY-tor am-er-i-CON-us), was widespread in the southeastern United States early in this century. The Rockefeller Sanitary Commission was founded in response, and hookworm infection has been largely controlled.
In modern, western societies, hookworm is non-existant. I've been barefoot a significant percentage of my life. I'm doing just fine, thanks. (Your post supports my argument about being barefoot-phobic. I'll also add barefoot-ignorant.)
If you want to take a stand on something, why not those ridiculous security stations I'm forced to walk through barefoot?
I'm perfectly happy to be barefoot there, and everywhere, 24/7. Why I have to put shoes on merely to board the plane is irrational. (I can remove my shoes at my seat and can even leave the plane -- and airport -- barefoot. The worst that could happen would be that they ask me to leave... which I'm doing anyway.)
No, there is no law forbidding being barefoot in a public place, building, or airport, nor about boarding a plane barefoot. The USA is the most barefoot-phobic country.
Maybe. IANAL, but I believe the law I cited only had to do with voiding one's warranty. Purchasing a 3rd-party ink cartridge for some printers, AFAIK, simply won't work, but trying to use it doesn't void your warranty.
It's not a highly restricted scenario. There are only two possible scenarios: either you thought of the idea independently or you didn't think of it at all. Since you didn't say which one you were talking about, I made no assumption about which one you were talking about. I merely picked one of the two. I never said you picked it.
You are seriously too ignorant to be making assertions in a discussion of patents.
I speak as someone who currently holds 3 patents with 2 on the way. I think that makes me qualified.
If you do not understand that you violate a patent when you do think of the idea yourself and have never even heard of the patented invention, you really don't know the first thing about patents.
Whose comments are you reading? I never said that. I never said anything about that case. The only case I said anything about was the following scenario:
I invent a widget, but do not patent it.
You see my widget (which you did not think of yourself).
You steal my idea and make millions.
Again, I never said anything about the case where you also independently thought of the idea. Damt it: read and adhere to my sig!
If I didn't explictly write something, don't infer it!
Now, if you want to talk about that case, fine. Regarding that case, tough luck. There can only be one winner of a race, best-picture Oscar, or anything else. The fact that you didn't think of the idea first is just too bad for you.
The US Supreme Court repeatedly rejected your argument about running software being a machine.
So cite a case, then I'll believe you.
Entities recouped money on software development before they were patentable.
So? I never said that wasn't the case.
Software was always patentable. It just didn't happen until the first time somebody patented software (obviously).
My company owns no software patents but makes plenty of money off of my programming.
Again, so? How is this relevant? I never said making money from software without patents was impossible. Please stop assuming I said or implied things I never explictly wrote.
Profitable software development happens despite software patents, not because of it.
Of course profit happens, but, if an invention isn't patented, it can be stolen and used by Microsoft (for example) thus destroying the original inventor's company. Hence, it's the big corporations that profit.
Or do you think there are no computer programmers in Europe?
What do programmers in Europe have to do with anything?
I'm not really versed in law in any field, and I don't really know anything about patents outside of the software field, but I haven't heard anything to make me believe that the other parts of the patent system are any better...
I really don't even have to counter your argument: you've done a great job with your own words. But, briefly, you never hear about all the patents that are just fine because they're not newsworthy.
And kids' meals don't depend on robbing everybody else of their rights...
How is my inventing something novel -- something you didn't think of -- and patenting it robbing you of your rights? Why should you have a right to use something you never thought of yourself?
Incidentally, the entire point of a patent is "the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention" (so says any patent certificate issued by the USPTO). The US Constitution specifically grants that right to any inventor, you included. Just because you're on the wrong end of the deal doesn't mean it's bad.
If you don't like it, invent something else. Indeed, a patent will force you to invent a better way thus fostering innovation and moving technology forward.
"Patents on software" is actually a misconception. There's no such thing. What's patented is the machine that results when particular software is being run. Hence a machine running software enabling one to make a purchase with a single click is no different that an all-mechanical machine with gears and such that enables the same thing. Clearly, such physical machines have always been patentable and rightly so. Just because you don't happen to like or agree with "software patents" doesn't make them inherently evil. Patents on anything allow an entitity to both recoup money invensted in creating the invention in the first place and to make a profit thus fosting future inventions. Sorry you just don't get it.
Always? Clearly, they couldn't have said it before computers were invented. If they said it at all, they said it probably only once in a specific case. They don't go around saying it in the opinions of unrelated cases. Please cite the case.
As for understanding patents (on anything, no just software), I meant that if one doesn't ever enforce a patent, then there's little point to getting one in the first place. The entire point of any patent is to exclude others.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally don't want any of my tax dollars used to fund any free/cheap technological service to anybody. Cities should just stick to funding the police, fire, water, and grounds maintenance, i.e., the traditional stuff cities are supposed to fund.
But the sad fact is that a lot of non-tech-savvy people, i.e., people who don't know any better, will see the shiny, pretty interface and think it's better just because it looks better. So, yes, pretty (alone) does often sell (unfortunately).
You mean like this? The only reason XP and later Windows OSs have/will have polish is because of Mac OS X. Before that, Windows looked like it was stuck in the '80s with blocky icons.
No offense, but you have no understanding of how copyright, OSS licenses, or patents work.
Java: vim, GNU make, javamake, javac, javadoc, IntelliJ IDEA.
If Apple can show that the patent as a whole is invalid, either because of a bad description or because there's prior art, then whether Apple is infringing the claims (again, the only part that matters in a lawsuit) is moot.
As for you, you're letting two isolated cases from many years ago significantly influence your thinking. So, if you've seen an auto accident, then you don't drive?
No, there is no law forbidding being barefoot in a public place, building, or airport, nor about boarding a plane barefoot. The USA is the most barefoot-phobic country.
That would be the Department of Redundancy Department.
Maybe. IANAL, but I believe the law I cited only had to do with voiding one's warranty. Purchasing a 3rd-party ink cartridge for some printers, AFAIK, simply won't work, but trying to use it doesn't void your warranty.
It's not a highly restricted scenario. There are only two possible scenarios: either you thought of the idea independently or you didn't think of it at all. Since you didn't say which one you were talking about, I made no assumption about which one you were talking about. I merely picked one of the two. I never said you picked it.
The cases you cite change the scope of what specifically is and is not patentable, but the Surpreme Court did not invalidate all software patents.
- I invent a widget, but do not patent it.
- You see my widget (which you did not think of yourself).
- You steal my idea and make millions.
Again, I never said anything about the case where you also independently thought of the idea. Damt it: read and adhere to my sig! If I didn't explictly write something, don't infer it!Now, if you want to talk about that case, fine. Regarding that case, tough luck. There can only be one winner of a race, best-picture Oscar, or anything else. The fact that you didn't think of the idea first is just too bad for you.
- So? I never said that wasn't the case.
- Software was always patentable. It just didn't happen until the first time somebody patented software (obviously).
Again, so? How is this relevant? I never said making money from software without patents was impossible. Please stop assuming I said or implied things I never explictly wrote. Of course profit happens, but, if an invention isn't patented, it can be stolen and used by Microsoft (for example) thus destroying the original inventor's company. Hence, it's the big corporations that profit. What do programmers in Europe have to do with anything?Incidentally, the entire point of a patent is "the right to exclude others from making, using or selling the invention" (so says any patent certificate issued by the USPTO). The US Constitution specifically grants that right to any inventor, you included. Just because you're on the wrong end of the deal doesn't mean it's bad.
If you don't like it, invent something else. Indeed, a patent will force you to invent a better way thus fostering innovation and moving technology forward.
Sorry you just don't get it.
"Patents on software" is actually a misconception. There's no such thing. What's patented is the machine that results when particular software is being run. Hence a machine running software enabling one to make a purchase with a single click is no different that an all-mechanical machine with gears and such that enables the same thing. Clearly, such physical machines have always been patentable and rightly so. Just because you don't happen to like or agree with "software patents" doesn't make them inherently evil. Patents on anything allow an entitity to both recoup money invensted in creating the invention in the first place and to make a profit thus fosting future inventions. Sorry you just don't get it.
As for understanding patents (on anything, no just software), I meant that if one doesn't ever enforce a patent, then there's little point to getting one in the first place. The entire point of any patent is to exclude others.
You're still going to be squished out of the market. If the ability for your kids to eat depended on it, somehow I think you'd think differently.