How is a software algorithm ("a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations") not a "process?" How is a computer which has been programmed in a particular way not a "machine?"
Software itself is not a process. The steps performed by a processor when executing the software do constitute a process. The algorithm underlying the software may be a process, but algorithms in the absence of practical application are considered "abstract ideas" which is one of the classes of judicial exceptions to patent eligibility - this is really what Bilski is all about. And a computer which has been programmed in a particular way is a machine, but the software with which it is programmed is not a machine.
And by what measure do you claim that the software arts continue to improve significantly faster than other areas of technology?
By the sheer vast numbers of patent applications filed for inventions in the software arts.
And even if that is demonstrably the case, what about other fast-moving areas of technology like biotech and materials science, specifically nanotechnology? Should those also have special rules? How fast is too fast?
Maybe. But one other factor that sets software apart in most cases is that anybody can write it with little to no initial investment. Really, all you need is a clunky old garage-sale computer, a (free) compiler, and skill. This sets Joe Sixpack, the free software hobbyist who codes on the weekends for fun, amid a minefield of players who have ample legal resources at their disposal. The bar for entry into the software arena is set so low that somebody's twelve-year-old kid could conceivably infringe a patent without even realizing it.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the faster an area of technology moves, the less it matters how long the patent term is. A patent in such an area will quickly become obsolete. It's actually stagnant technology where a long patent term on a rare innovation is most valuable.
It depends. What if a particular software concept is so necessary in a particular subfield that being barred (legally or financially) from using that concept would substantially hinder the progress of that subfield? Such a patent would be extremely valuable, ensuring that such progress would be hindered for a full 20 years.
I agree that software shouldn't be patentable (either directly or through the various loopholes that applicants use to get around the fact that software, when claimed directly, is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter").
But in my opinion, this should be a matter of policy motivated by the fact that the rate of improvements in the software arts is far too fast to permit 20-year terms of patent protection, and such a policy has to come from Congress rather than the courts. Current law seems to support the idea of granting patent rights for programs in the context of a "general purpose computer programmed with software" or a "computer readable storage medium embodying software", and I seriously doubt that SCOTUS is going to change that.
Actually, those are pretty good rebranding efforts. They replace a cumbersome word that might not be easy to remember or that doesn't have a good connection with the content of the site with a single short commonly-used word that is on target and easy to remember. (Of course, nobody ever visits either one of these sites unless they come up in a Google search....)
On the other hand, Sci-Fi's decision to call themselves "Syfy" is simply a lame attempt to justify having professional wrestling in their lineup.
Really, if you are doing this for yourself and have no intention of selling your product, then you are free to use their method all you want.
35 U.S.C. 271 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Yes, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would ever sue you for infringing a patent in the privacy of your own home because the damages would be minuscule and it would be very difficult to prove infringement, but it's still an infringement.
That's actually a really good point. On a related note, what I'm interested to know is whether the allegedly faulty data diverges from other firms' polling data on particular questions. In other words, are they pushing an agenda of some sort? Are they just faking data so they have something to sell? Is Nate Silver full of shit?
Amy: This is Bolt Rolands. Bolt is a hyper-sled racer with ten wins on the pro circuit. Bolt: Hello, beautiful! Bender: (whispers) I think she means ten wins on the gay circuit. Bolt: (chuckling) I wish! Those cats can really fly.
A few years ago the worry was that instant messenger programs would make people dumb. Now its text messaging. There's no indication that any of this is making anyone substantially stupider.
Actually, people are already dumb. We always have been. The difference now is that our advanced technology only serves to make our stupidity more apparent to the observer.
Personally, I think it's fairly unlikely that we'll get any useful guidance from the Supreme Court in Bilski as applied to software patents. While some of the case law related to Bilski does apply to software patents, the Supreme Court will probably limit itself to the narrow questions of Bilski (i.e., business method claims that are fairly obviously directed to abstract concepts. Software patents are enough of a gray area, and enough of a matter of public policy rather than established case law, that they will likely defer to Congress on that question (and good luck getting any new patent laws from them).
Games like World Cup 98 are exceptions to the rule, because the advertisements reflect what you see on TV when you watch those sporting events, lending an air of authenticity to them.
The vast majority of games are not set in the modern real world, though, and advertisements for modern real world products are inappropriate in those games.
What's really disgusting is that the RIAA/CRIA, in this case through their lapdogs in the AFM, are still firmly convinced that they speak for all musicians everywhere.
These guys already figured this out several years ago. (Sorry, I couldn't find a non-subscription link.)
During the pilgrimages to Mecca, one of the things that people are supposed to do is go into a large stadium and cast rocks at three pillars. Zillions of people attend this event, and there have been numerous trampling deaths at the entrance to the stadium. These guys showed that having obstructions near the entrance improves traffic flow, and so they recommended to officials in Mecca to install such obstacles there, resulting in far fewer trampling deaths near the entrance. Other means of traffic calming were used to mitigate deaths elsewhere in the stadium.
In case anyone cares, "dark field" refers to an imaging technique which uses a light beam to illuminate a surface, but positions the sensor such that specular reflections (i.e., direct reflections which occur when light strikes a fairly smooth surface) are not picked up by the sensor. Instead, scattered (diffuse) reflections are picked up by the sensor, which highlights bumps and nicks in the surface.
Compare this to "bright field" which refers to a technique where the specular reflection is received directly by the image sensor. The specular reflection is typically much brighter than any diffuse components which also happen to strike the sensor, so a simple threshold is able to filter out the diffuse components.
Both techniques are used in, e.g., inspection of objects for defects, such as integrated circuits and masks, PCB soldering, etc.
Actually, you make my point for me quite nicely. Microsoft considers itself to have competition in the database arena, and prices its products in that arena competitively. But in the OS arena, they still consider themselves to be the only game in town, so they charge uncompetitive prices for their OSes.
Slashdot Mirror
How is a software algorithm ("a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations") not a "process?" How is a computer which has been programmed in a particular way not a "machine?"
Software itself is not a process. The steps performed by a processor when executing the software do constitute a process. The algorithm underlying the software may be a process, but algorithms in the absence of practical application are considered "abstract ideas" which is one of the classes of judicial exceptions to patent eligibility - this is really what Bilski is all about. And a computer which has been programmed in a particular way is a machine, but the software with which it is programmed is not a machine.
And by what measure do you claim that the software arts continue to improve significantly faster than other areas of technology?
By the sheer vast numbers of patent applications filed for inventions in the software arts.
And even if that is demonstrably the case, what about other fast-moving areas of technology like biotech and materials science, specifically nanotechnology? Should those also have special rules? How fast is too fast?
Maybe. But one other factor that sets software apart in most cases is that anybody can write it with little to no initial investment. Really, all you need is a clunky old garage-sale computer, a (free) compiler, and skill. This sets Joe Sixpack, the free software hobbyist who codes on the weekends for fun, amid a minefield of players who have ample legal resources at their disposal. The bar for entry into the software arena is set so low that somebody's twelve-year-old kid could conceivably infringe a patent without even realizing it.
Furthermore, I would suggest that the faster an area of technology moves, the less it matters how long the patent term is. A patent in such an area will quickly become obsolete. It's actually stagnant technology where a long patent term on a rare innovation is most valuable.
It depends. What if a particular software concept is so necessary in a particular subfield that being barred (legally or financially) from using that concept would substantially hinder the progress of that subfield? Such a patent would be extremely valuable, ensuring that such progress would be hindered for a full 20 years.
I agree that software shouldn't be patentable (either directly or through the various loopholes that applicants use to get around the fact that software, when claimed directly, is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter").
But in my opinion, this should be a matter of policy motivated by the fact that the rate of improvements in the software arts is far too fast to permit 20-year terms of patent protection, and such a policy has to come from Congress rather than the courts. Current law seems to support the idea of granting patent rights for programs in the context of a "general purpose computer programmed with software" or a "computer readable storage medium embodying software", and I seriously doubt that SCOTUS is going to change that.
Actually, those are pretty good rebranding efforts. They replace a cumbersome word that might not be easy to remember or that doesn't have a good connection with the content of the site with a single short commonly-used word that is on target and easy to remember. (Of course, nobody ever visits either one of these sites unless they come up in a Google search....)
On the other hand, Sci-Fi's decision to call themselves "Syfy" is simply a lame attempt to justify having professional wrestling in their lineup.
Really, if you are doing this for yourself and have no intention of selling your product, then you are free to use their method all you want.
35 U.S.C. 271 (a) Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
Yes, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would ever sue you for infringing a patent in the privacy of your own home because the damages would be minuscule and it would be very difficult to prove infringement, but it's still an infringement.
That's actually a really good point. On a related note, what I'm interested to know is whether the allegedly faulty data diverges from other firms' polling data on particular questions. In other words, are they pushing an agenda of some sort? Are they just faking data so they have something to sell? Is Nate Silver full of shit?
Amy: This is Bolt Rolands. Bolt is a hyper-sled racer with ten wins on the pro circuit.
Bolt: Hello, beautiful!
Bender: (whispers) I think she means ten wins on the gay circuit.
Bolt: (chuckling) I wish! Those cats can really fly.
Vizzini: Infeasible!
Inigo: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Indeed, and for those folks wondering how the digital camera works that they have at home, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter.
Actually, it's mostly a semantic argument concerning what "clever" means.
How did you manage to invent this if you're not an electrical or RF guy?
Or better yet, the iChair.
A few years ago the worry was that instant messenger programs would make people dumb. Now its text messaging. There's no indication that any of this is making anyone substantially stupider.
Actually, people are already dumb. We always have been. The difference now is that our advanced technology only serves to make our stupidity more apparent to the observer.
For the record, you don't really get a streamlined examination in the US by filing your application under the PCT.
Personally, I think it's fairly unlikely that we'll get any useful guidance from the Supreme Court in Bilski as applied to software patents. While some of the case law related to Bilski does apply to software patents, the Supreme Court will probably limit itself to the narrow questions of Bilski (i.e., business method claims that are fairly obviously directed to abstract concepts. Software patents are enough of a gray area, and enough of a matter of public policy rather than established case law, that they will likely defer to Congress on that question (and good luck getting any new patent laws from them).
Games like World Cup 98 are exceptions to the rule, because the advertisements reflect what you see on TV when you watch those sporting events, lending an air of authenticity to them.
The vast majority of games are not set in the modern real world, though, and advertisements for modern real world products are inappropriate in those games.
What's really disgusting is that the RIAA/CRIA, in this case through their lapdogs in the AFM, are still firmly convinced that they speak for all musicians everywhere.
It ain't true. Really.
We're afraid at what we're going to find in the South Gyre, but we've got to go there,' said Tony Haymet, director of the Scripps Institution.
Famous last words before being eaten by Cthulhu.
Bingo, sir.
Hail, hail, Robonia, a land I didn't make up!
These guys already figured this out several years ago. (Sorry, I couldn't find a non-subscription link.)
During the pilgrimages to Mecca, one of the things that people are supposed to do is go into a large stadium and cast rocks at three pillars. Zillions of people attend this event, and there have been numerous trampling deaths at the entrance to the stadium. These guys showed that having obstructions near the entrance improves traffic flow, and so they recommended to officials in Mecca to install such obstacles there, resulting in far fewer trampling deaths near the entrance. Other means of traffic calming were used to mitigate deaths elsewhere in the stadium.
It's just the stupid blogs and reviews that have to go rub it on every glass surface they can find
Wait.... we're still talking about mice here, right?
In case anyone cares, "dark field" refers to an imaging technique which uses a light beam to illuminate a surface, but positions the sensor such that specular reflections (i.e., direct reflections which occur when light strikes a fairly smooth surface) are not picked up by the sensor. Instead, scattered (diffuse) reflections are picked up by the sensor, which highlights bumps and nicks in the surface.
Compare this to "bright field" which refers to a technique where the specular reflection is received directly by the image sensor. The specular reflection is typically much brighter than any diffuse components which also happen to strike the sensor, so a simple threshold is able to filter out the diffuse components.
Both techniques are used in, e.g., inspection of objects for defects, such as integrated circuits and masks, PCB soldering, etc.
will be something bold and different, Molyneux promises, stating that story and drama will play a major part in it.
Is that some sort of form paragraph for him?
I thought Australian meeses had their buttons on the bottom.
Actually, you make my point for me quite nicely. Microsoft considers itself to have competition in the database arena, and prices its products in that arena competitively. But in the OS arena, they still consider themselves to be the only game in town, so they charge uncompetitive prices for their OSes.