I don't think that's a good comparison. It's a lot easier to write a cross-platform website than it is to write cross-platform applications. Sure, some of the underlying code can be reused. But a lot of the code (particularly for interacting with the file system and the GUI bits) will be platform-specific.
Talk about trying to cash in on success! I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. To my knowledge googol wasn't trademarked. So it's not like he was trying to restrict use of the term. In fact, since an effort was made to get it into the general mathematical parlance, pretty much the opposite is true.
Who would use critical hardware from a company that can't even decide where to put their curly-braces? Are they at the end of the line or on a line by themself? Make up your frickin' mind!!
Not true. Trade secrets, while affording significantly less protection than patents, have indefinite length and you do not have to claim anything publicly.
Someone else can patent it later if they develop a similar idea independently of you (for example, if one person invents the wheel but keeps it secret it is only a matter of time before someone else does) but other items are not so easily repeatable.
IANAL, but IIRC trade secrets are protected as long as you keep the secret.
Ok, reading my post I realize I shoud clarify.
In the scenario I described the later inventor would not be entitled to a patent if: 1) it was the exact same invention 2) the prior inventor could prove that they invented it first (a fairly high standards as I understand it)
Whether this is likely to be solved during the application proceeding for the later inventor or during court after a patent has been granted I can't say for sure (but I was assuming the latter).
Once the trade secret becomes public, however (and it would during any patent dispute), it is no longer protected and the prior inventor would not have any rights to a patent for it.
Patents were created so inventors explained their invention. Patents were NOT necessary as an incentive to innovate, but as an incentive to SHARE the discovery with the society.
And, thus, we have the flaw with software patents. What really needed to be explained about one-click after using Amazon a single time? Was there anything truly innovative in the invention of one-click?
Most software "inventions" that we are discussing are immediately obvious upon using them a single time.
So the real question with regard to software patents is, are there any software patents that benefit the public from disclosure of the invention? And, if so, what kind of inventions would they be?
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Other legislative documents have similar ideas embodied in them.
So yeah, patents were created to "incite" (what the living hell made you choose that word?) inventors to invent.
Wrong. The "Progress" mentioned here is achieved by getting inventors to publicize their inventions.
Well, NO if they did, they would have had to do it before 1990, when I saw it done by people working at Cambridge University Maths Lab, and whoever did do it first, the patent would have run out by now.
If you invent something and keep it secret but do not follow through on the invention by publishing it or selling it (or otherwise making it public) or file for a patent you have abandoned your invention. Someone who comes along later and invents the same thing is entitled to a patent on that invention.
The lesson is, if you invent something and don't want a patent you have to publish.
And the examiners are overworked. That's why there is a bill going through Congress that would raise the cost of getting a patent. The money would be used to hire a lot (like 75%) more examiners.
The USPTO clearly does not have the resources/desire/ability to verify that everything that crosses their desks are actually vaid patents, so we should quit assuming that they are and let the court system sort it out when necessary.
I hate to burst your rant bubble, but that's always how it has worked. The USPTO is not in the business of saying a patent is "valid" or not.
If the "interface" is simply how it looks then it will be covered by either: 1) a design patent 2) a trademark
But, if the interface involves more than anything just visual properties it will be covered by a utility patent.
In the case of iTunes, the parts of the layout have actual meaning. And their functionality is related (clicking on an item in one panel changes another panel). Therefore this is more than just the "look" of the item and also includes the "functionality".
Keep in mind that GUI elements like Expose can also probably be patented with a utility patent. Only things like the gumdrop buttons would not be protectable with a design patent.
It's not malevolent but it is in their best interest.
When the next killer worm sweeps the world I doubt Microsoft will just be able to wave their hand and say, "it's all those illegal copies that are causing the problem" and have people believe it.
I wonder what the work distribution will be between Isreal and the US on the new processors. It sounds like the US designs are letting the company down.
I remember reading a while back that one of the Intel chips came out of the design group in India. Was that the Pentium-M? Or am I just remembering this totally wrong?
It would be kind of funny if Intel cancelled its American chip designs in favor of continuing work on a design from India.
This should have been visible from a mile away. A month or so ago there was an article (on The Register I think) about Intel abandoning it's Mhz marketing in favor of a simple number system (for example, 5xx series for one processor line, 7xx series for another processor line). It was obvious to me at the time this was because they would be dumping the current P-4 and going with the P-M. Why else would you remove Mhz from the equation?
Not locking your front door doesn't give you the right to blame the door-making companies when you get burgled. You can still blame the burglars, but you're out of luck if you claim insurance since it's your own fault.
That's a terrible analogy.
A better analogy would be a company that builds houses. And the houses made by this company have doors that are unlocked when the house is turned over to the owner. Except these doors are not in places the typical owner would think to find a door. And, through their marketing, the home building company never encourages their customers to learn about these doors.
In this case, you're damn right that the home building company would be liable for burglary losses. Why is it any different with computers?
The difference is that one is focused on making everyone else fail, rather than making yourself more successful.
I wanted to touch more on this. The problem we have is devising a system that encourages people to commercialize products but does not penalize people who are genuinely trying.
Many inventions are created that cannot be commercialized immediately. A patent needs to be applied for soon after the invention is reduced to practice. This needs to be done for practical reasons (lest the invention somehow get into the public domain) as well as statutory (if you don't actively pursue the invention and application you have effectively abandoned it and cannot get a patent).
So inventors get patents for inventions well before the invention has a practical commercial application.
Why can't the invention be commercialized? A small inventor may lack the immediate resources to produce and market the product. A large corporation may be involved in complicated products that require many pieces - and the current invention is but one of many. Sometimes the market conditions are not just quite right. The reasons can vary.
Just because an invention has not been commercialized doesn't mean an inventor is intentionally ignoring their patented invention.
Creating a patent system that allows for inventors to use their patent as they please means that inventors can also, effectively, ignore their patent. It's unfortunate. But I think the overall benefit of the patent system (that being, a huge amount of knowledge dedicated to the public) is more than compensation.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's a good comparison. It's a lot easier to write a cross-platform website than it is to write cross-platform applications. Sure, some of the underlying code can be reused. But a lot of the code (particularly for interacting with the file system and the GUI bits) will be platform-specific.
Thanks for the suggestion. But, I don't compile. I just click the icon :)
Thankfully for my browsing at home I get a much better selection including Safari and Camino (which, to my eyes, far outshines Firefox).
Firefox is called the "lean, mean browsing machine".
It should be called the "lean, mean crashing machine" because that's what it does 3-4 times a day for me.
Talk about trying to cash in on success! I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. To my knowledge googol wasn't trademarked. So it's not like he was trying to restrict use of the term. In fact, since an effort was made to get it into the general mathematical parlance, pretty much the opposite is true.
Who would use critical hardware from a company that can't even decide where to put their curly-braces? Are they at the end of the line or on a line by themself? Make up your frickin' mind!!
Not true. Trade secrets, while affording significantly less protection than patents, have indefinite length and you do not have to claim anything publicly.
Someone else can patent it later if they develop a similar idea independently of you (for example, if one person invents the wheel but keeps it secret it is only a matter of time before someone else does) but other items are not so easily repeatable.
IANAL, but IIRC trade secrets are protected as long as you keep the secret.
Ok, reading my post I realize I shoud clarify.
In the scenario I described the later inventor would not be entitled to a patent if:
1) it was the exact same invention
2) the prior inventor could prove that they invented it first (a fairly high standards as I understand it)
Whether this is likely to be solved during the application proceeding for the later inventor or during court after a patent has been granted I can't say for sure (but I was assuming the latter).
Once the trade secret becomes public, however (and it would during any patent dispute), it is no longer protected and the prior inventor would not have any rights to a patent for it.
Patents were created so inventors explained their invention. Patents were NOT necessary as an incentive to innovate, but as an incentive to SHARE the discovery with the society.
And, thus, we have the flaw with software patents. What really needed to be explained about one-click after using Amazon a single time? Was there anything truly innovative in the invention of one-click?
Most software "inventions" that we are discussing are immediately obvious upon using them a single time.
So the real question with regard to software patents is, are there any software patents that benefit the public from disclosure of the invention? And, if so, what kind of inventions would they be?
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Other legislative documents have similar ideas embodied in them.
So yeah, patents were created to "incite" (what the living hell made you choose that word?) inventors to invent.
Wrong. The "Progress" mentioned here is achieved by getting inventors to publicize their inventions.
Well, NO if they did, they would have had to do it before 1990, when I saw it done by people working at Cambridge University Maths Lab, and whoever did do it first, the patent would have run out by now.
If you invent something and keep it secret but do not follow through on the invention by publishing it or selling it (or otherwise making it public) or file for a patent you have abandoned your invention. Someone who comes along later and invents the same thing is entitled to a patent on that invention.
The lesson is, if you invent something and don't want a patent you have to publish.
1. It wasn't stolen. How many times does this have to be corrected before people actually pay attention?
2. It was a look-and-feel issue (basically, trademark). No patents were involved.
True. It's not like registering a copyright.
And the examiners are overworked. That's why there is a bill going through Congress that would raise the cost of getting a patent. The money would be used to hire a lot (like 75%) more examiners.
That should say:
Only things like the gumdrop buttons would not be protectable with a utility patent.
Carry on.....
The USPTO clearly does not have the resources/desire/ability to verify that everything that crosses their desks are actually vaid patents, so we should quit assuming that they are and let the court system sort it out when necessary.
I hate to burst your rant bubble, but that's always how it has worked. The USPTO is not in the business of saying a patent is "valid" or not.
If the "interface" is simply how it looks then it will be covered by either:
1) a design patent
2) a trademark
But, if the interface involves more than anything just visual properties it will be covered by a utility patent.
In the case of iTunes, the parts of the layout have actual meaning. And their functionality is related (clicking on an item in one panel changes another panel). Therefore this is more than just the "look" of the item and also includes the "functionality".
Keep in mind that GUI elements like Expose can also probably be patented with a utility patent. Only things like the gumdrop buttons would not be protectable with a design patent.
you know, Google doesn't cache the images or other linked resources....
It's not malevolent but it is in their best interest.
When the next killer worm sweeps the world I doubt Microsoft will just be able to wave their hand and say, "it's all those illegal copies that are causing the problem" and have people believe it.
Bad PR is a big danger to Microsoft.
I thought the DMCA didn't directly outlaw such activity - but that it just outlawed the tools that would be used to execute that activity.
Thanks
I wonder what the work distribution will be between Isreal and the US on the new processors. It sounds like the US designs are letting the company down.
I remember reading a while back that one of the Intel chips came out of the design group in India. Was that the Pentium-M? Or am I just remembering this totally wrong?
It would be kind of funny if Intel cancelled its American chip designs in favor of continuing work on a design from India.
I think someone forgot to choose "Plain Old Text" before they hit Submit! :)
This should have been visible from a mile away. A month or so ago there was an article (on The Register I think) about Intel abandoning it's Mhz marketing in favor of a simple number system (for example, 5xx series for one processor line, 7xx series for another processor line). It was obvious to me at the time this was because they would be dumping the current P-4 and going with the P-M. Why else would you remove Mhz from the equation?
"We're not goint to say when it will be delivered, or what it will be. But it's going to be very, very important"
One of my favorite outcomes of the IBM antitrust trial was that IBM was forbidden from engaging in vaporware.
I don't care about its effects on competition, I just want Microsoft to shut up until they actually have something to show.
Not locking your front door doesn't give you the right to blame the door-making companies when you get burgled. You can still blame the burglars, but you're out of luck if you claim insurance since it's your own fault.
That's a terrible analogy.
A better analogy would be a company that builds houses. And the houses made by this company have doors that are unlocked when the house is turned over to the owner. Except these doors are not in places the typical owner would think to find a door. And, through their marketing, the home building company never encourages their customers to learn about these doors.
In this case, you're damn right that the home building company would be liable for burglary losses. Why is it any different with computers?
Just wanted to point out that in this case, the system admins that didn't patch the MS OS probably wouldn't take the time to update their OSS either.
But Microsoft almost seems to be saying in their marketing, "even an idiot can run a Microsoft network" and companies are taking them up on that.
The difference is that one is focused on making everyone else fail, rather than making yourself more successful.
I wanted to touch more on this. The problem we have is devising a system that encourages people to commercialize products but does not penalize people who are genuinely trying.
Many inventions are created that cannot be commercialized immediately. A patent needs to be applied for soon after the invention is reduced to practice. This needs to be done for practical reasons (lest the invention somehow get into the public domain) as well as statutory (if you don't actively pursue the invention and application you have effectively abandoned it and cannot get a patent).
So inventors get patents for inventions well before the invention has a practical commercial application.
Why can't the invention be commercialized? A small inventor may lack the immediate resources to produce and market the product. A large corporation may be involved in complicated products that require many pieces - and the current invention is but one of many. Sometimes the market conditions are not just quite right. The reasons can vary.
Just because an invention has not been commercialized doesn't mean an inventor is intentionally ignoring their patented invention.
Creating a patent system that allows for inventors to use their patent as they please means that inventors can also, effectively, ignore their patent. It's unfortunate. But I think the overall benefit of the patent system (that being, a huge amount of knowledge dedicated to the public) is more than compensation.