In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation. The term "manufacture" refers to articles which are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term "composition of matter" relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy for atomic weapons.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
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.
In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation. The term "manufacture" refers to articles which are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term "composition of matter" relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy for atomic weapons.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
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.
So...you must describe the complete process, and demonstrate it functionally. Further, it must be provably "useful". IOW Henry Ford could have patented applying the assembly line process to building automobiles.
Ok, you are right, just because certain idiotic patents have been acquired in the past, they will continue to be issued, and even though in the past, the judges have thrown out the ludicris patents, that too will change.
Again, you are missing the point. Use a different large number theory one way mathematical function. Oh, and FYI, there are no True one way mathematical functions, there are simply functions that are NP to reverse.
New theory. 200 years ago, we had reached the theoretical optimal speed and weight limits for travel. 150-100 years ago, we perfected steam, IC engine, and air travel. 50 years ago we revolutionized air travel with rocket and jet power. BR revolution vs evolution
I understand that we are closing in on the "theoretical optimal limit". SO the Evolution of algorithms is reaching its close... so we need an innovative change. a Revolutionary search algorithm. A new theory.
well... perhaps we should be using the patent system. instead of twiddling our thumbs waiting for someone else to patent something... patent your standard. Champion open standards and then patent them. license the patent... $$$upport open software $$$upport free software on the backs of big business.
For new innovations in large number theory, 20 years is more than fair. People have been working on Fermat for 300+ years. Is it inherent in the system. YUP. Is it common sense obvious. Well at first glance. was it non-trivial.. OH YEAH. Nothing gives me an inalienable right to charge money for anything. However, nothing requires me to share either.
There are as many different ways to sort data, encrypt data, compress data(lossy or lossless), or do any other task computationally as there are programmers. The problem is not code re-use, the problem is the inability to think outside the box, and develop a new way.
OK, legacy data. I'll avoid patent problems the same way I avoid patent problems with LZW. If it truly is legacy, then any patents will have expired. Solving the problem.
You are right, I chose it. Now, if you have a good, or even a better example, let's discuss that. And let's keep the discussion to what has happened, not what could happen.
Nope, most senators cannot afford to ignore 200 letters that can represent as many as 5000 voters. Because for most Representatives and more that a few Senators, a 5000 vote swing which effects a change of 10,000 would change winning to losing. And 50,000 letters(distinct, not form) represent 50,000 people who are passionate enough to go out and vote. and 50,000 votes will swing any election....
Yes, they chose to protect their patent even on readers. However, in their statement on the matter they state plainly that there are circumstances under which they will GIVE without charge FREE a license. Unisys
Now, I haven't called them up, but I'm not a "open source representative" I don't even speak for myself some days. BUT perhaps if someone would e-mail or fax them for a more clear explaination.
If open source and free software proponents would write to their congressmen individually, with personal(not form) letters, 2-300 letters per senator/representative would have a much larger impact than a Special interest group representing 50,000 people. this very closely maps to the theory behind the Star Trek phenomenon where all the fans wrote begging to keep the show on the air, and the powers that be... assumed that for every letter written, 10 were not...
Make something better. Some of us still have to work for a living. I respect those like Knuth who chose to release effective algorithms into the wild and are still able to put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and roof over head. But everyone can't go into teaching.
I understand that abusive software patents like One click shopping or adding 1+1=10, But for non-trivial items... gif ie LZW compression algorithm, 7-14 years of protection is reasonable. So while Bruce Perens opposes patents on principle, obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not. Fortunately... or not... if you ask 4 open source advocates or community members what open source stands for you will get at least 6 answers. That is the strength of open source and free software.
Odd, I Read, and just re-read the article, and nothing is Said Regarding comparison to a Peecee. Now, I did have some broken picture links, but no discussion of peecees or Intel or AMD or Via.
"Bill "Tony Boucher" White had been dead right. Once you get the monkey on your back there is not cure short of the grave. I can leave the typewriter alone for weeks, even months, by going to sea. I can hold off for any necessary period of time if I am strenuously engaged in some other full-time, worthwhile occupation... But if I simply loaf for more then two or three days, that monkey starts niggling at me."--
Robert Anson Heinlein
Slashdot Mirror
In the language of the statute, any person who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent," subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. The word "process" is defined by law as a process, act or method, and primarily includes industrial or technical processes. The term "machine" used in the statute needs no explanation. The term "manufacture" refers to articles which are made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term "composition of matter" relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything which is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 excludes the patenting of inventions useful solely in the utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy for atomic weapons.
The patent law specifies that the subject matter must be "useful." The term "useful" in this connection refers to the condition that the subject matter has a useful purpose and also includes operativeness, that is, a machine which will not operate to perform the intended purpose would not be called useful, and therefore would not be granted a patent.
Interpretations of the statute by the courts have defined the limits of the field of subject matter which can be patented, thus it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter.
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.
So...you must describe the complete process, and demonstrate it functionally. Further, it must be provably "useful". IOW Henry Ford could have patented applying the assembly line process to building automobiles.
Ok, you are right, just because certain idiotic patents have been acquired in the past, they will continue to be issued, and even though in the past, the judges have thrown out the ludicris patents, that too will change.
Go for it, but I've got 75 years of prior art...
Again, you are missing the point. Use a different large number theory one way mathematical function.
Oh, and FYI, there are no True one way mathematical functions, there are simply functions that are NP to reverse.
New theory. 200 years ago, we had reached the theoretical optimal speed and weight limits for travel. 150-100 years ago, we perfected steam, IC engine, and air travel. 50 years ago we revolutionized air travel with rocket and jet power.
BR revolution vs evolution
I understand that we are closing in on the "theoretical optimal limit". SO the Evolution of algorithms is reaching its close... so we need an innovative change. a Revolutionary search algorithm. A new theory.
well... perhaps we should be using the patent system. instead of twiddling our thumbs waiting for someone else to patent something... patent your standard. Champion open standards and then patent them. license the patent... $$$upport open software $$$upport free software on the backs of big business.
No, using XOR to cause a cursor to blink is patented. You just said it. So if you want a blinking cursor, come up with another way to blink.
For Addition. Prior art.
For new innovations in large number theory, 20 years is more than fair. People have been working on Fermat for 300+ years. Is it inherent in the system. YUP. Is it common sense obvious. Well at first glance. was it non-trivial.. OH YEAH.
Nothing gives me an inalienable right to charge money for anything. However, nothing requires me to share either.
The XBOX will now come with a monitor, an HP label, and Windows XP. Yay!
Oh wait, this is a bad thing... I think.
Then DON'T USE THE STANDARD.
INNOVATE!!!
SET THE STANDARD...
There are as many different ways to sort data, encrypt data, compress data(lossy or lossless), or do any other task computationally as there are programmers. The problem is not code re-use, the problem is the inability to think outside the box, and develop a new way.
Ok, Great.
IF it violates patent
THEN it isn't Innovative
IF available public key encryption patented
THEN develop innovative public key protocol
ELSE pay for use
OK, legacy data. I'll avoid patent problems the same way I avoid patent problems with LZW. If it truly is legacy, then any patents will have expired. Solving the problem.
Texas.
And I believe that Handgun control means sometimes having to use both hands.
You are right, I chose it. Now, if you have a good, or even a better example, let's discuss that. And let's keep the discussion to what has happened, not what could happen.
Nope, most senators cannot afford to ignore 200 letters that can represent as many as 5000 voters. Because for most Representatives and more that a few Senators, a 5000 vote swing which effects a change of 10,000 would change winning to losing. And 50,000 letters(distinct, not form) represent 50,000 people who are passionate enough to go out and vote. and 50,000 votes will swing any election....
Yes, they chose to protect their patent even on readers. However, in their statement on the matter they state plainly that there are circumstances under which they will GIVE without charge FREE a license. Unisys
Now, I haven't called them up, but I'm not a "open source representative" I don't even speak for myself some days. BUT perhaps if someone would e-mail or fax them for a more clear explaination.
If open source and free software proponents would write to their congressmen individually, with personal(not form) letters, 2-300 letters per senator/representative would have a much larger impact than a Special interest group representing 50,000 people.
this very closely maps to the theory behind the Star Trek phenomenon where all the fans wrote begging to keep the show on the air, and the powers that be... assumed that for every letter written, 10 were not...
Make something better. Some of us still have to work for a living. I respect those like Knuth who chose to release effective algorithms into the wild and are still able to put food on the table, clothes on their backs, and roof over head. But everyone can't go into teaching.
I understand that abusive software patents like One click shopping or adding 1+1=10, But for non-trivial items ... gif ie LZW compression algorithm, 7-14 years of protection is reasonable. So while Bruce Perens opposes patents on principle, obviously there is a sector of the open source movement that does not. Fortunately... or not... if you ask 4 open source advocates or community members what open source stands for you will get at least 6 answers. That is the strength of open source and free software.
Thank you, those "bar charts" just showed up as broken pictures for me.
Odd, I Read, and just re-read the article, and nothing is Said Regarding comparison to a Peecee. Now, I did have some broken picture links, but no discussion of peecees or Intel or AMD or Via.
How does it compare to the AMD/Intel/Via processor families?
"Bill "Tony Boucher" White had been dead right. Once you get the monkey on your back there is not cure short of the grave. I can leave the typewriter alone for weeks, even months, by going to sea. I can hold off for any necessary period of time if I am strenuously engaged in some other full-time, worthwhile occupation... But if I simply loaf for more then two or three days, that monkey starts niggling at me."-- Robert Anson Heinlein