It'd be interesting to see a file system structure like that. Rather than saying there are 500 blocks assigned to a file as a word descriptor along with a few dwords to define where you can find those sectors on a disk, it'd be nice to see, "Dude, you have 500 blocks assigned, and if you seek a few bytes to the left, and then back right and up and down you should be able to see all the parts." I can see that being a lot faster; string parsing is super fast on computers these days; I hear parsing a 4000 unicode characters is faster than doing some integer manipulation
> Also if you've read a software patent, they go against the principle of patents, full disclosure of mechanism. Most s-patents I've read are worded such, that they could cover 10-20 different things, and don't show you how the Licensor does even one thing.
Interesting, I suppose I'll have to answer you with yet another few questions:
While 'obvious' patents are an issue everywhere, why is it that it seems to be a much larger issue with software?
Do the technical people not exist in order to determine if some piece of software is patentable?
Why doesn't the patent office follow the same stringent rules on patenting software as they do for other disciplines?
If the patent offices were to follow these so-called rules, would the problem disappear?
Should software be copyright?
Isn't hardware in a sense copyrightable as well?
I could design the hardware in say VHDL, or whatever, copyright that, produce a piece of hardware on that design and then patent the chip, could I not?
Is it the documentation that is being patented for Hardware, and thus the documentation (assuming any were done) should be the item submitted for patent?
UK Judge: Who needs software patents?
Me: Who needs patents?
I'll admit I know zero about IP, but as far as I can tell a software patent is simply a subset of patents, so if you can answer the second question, you'll have you answer for the first.
Is the patent really the problem?
Why should anyone be able to patent anything? What differentiates a piece of hardware from a piece of software, aside from the medium in which it is presented?
Slashdot Mirror
It'd be interesting to see a file system structure like that. Rather than saying there are 500 blocks assigned to a file as a word descriptor along with a few dwords to define where you can find those sectors on a disk, it'd be nice to see, "Dude, you have 500 blocks assigned, and if you seek a few bytes to the left, and then back right and up and down you should be able to see all the parts." I can see that being a lot faster; string parsing is super fast on computers these days; I hear parsing a 4000 unicode characters is faster than doing some integer manipulation
> Also if you've read a software patent, they go against the principle of patents, full disclosure of mechanism. Most s-patents I've read are worded such, that they could cover 10-20 different things, and don't show you how the Licensor does even one thing.
Interesting, I suppose I'll have to answer you with yet another few questions:
While 'obvious' patents are an issue everywhere, why is it that it seems to be a much larger issue with software?
Do the technical people not exist in order to determine if some piece of software is patentable?
Why doesn't the patent office follow the same stringent rules on patenting software as they do for other disciplines?
If the patent offices were to follow these so-called rules, would the problem disappear?
Should software be copyright? Isn't hardware in a sense copyrightable as well?
I could design the hardware in say VHDL, or whatever, copyright that, produce a piece of hardware on that design and then patent the chip, could I not?
Is it the documentation that is being patented for Hardware, and thus the documentation (assuming any were done) should be the item submitted for patent?
Just a few thoughts I suppose...
UK Judge: Who needs software patents?
Me: Who needs patents?
I'll admit I know zero about IP, but as far as I can tell a software patent is simply a subset of patents, so if you can answer the second question, you'll have you answer for the first. Is the patent really the problem?
Why should anyone be able to patent anything? What differentiates a piece of hardware from a piece of software, aside from the medium in which it is presented?