IAALBNYL (I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer), so let me dissect your analysis here.
First, while I'm not entirely sure your first paragraph's point, I can guess that you are upset that the entire idea of the FOO algorithm can be protected. This isn't an entirely coherent with respect to any of the intellectual property regimes anywhere. First, to the extent that a patent may apply, a patent would cover it only to the extent that it is a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition." The problem with respect to computer algorithms is that they are almost always reducible to a machine. This makes sense and why it's difficult to object to software patents on these grounds. Indeed, many of the most innovative non-software patents are essentially algorithms reduced to machines. While the Microsoft v. AT&T case didn't come out and say, "software as software is unpatentable" it was mentioned by both sides at oral arguments.
Second, to the extent that it relates to copyrights, copyright only protects a particular implementation of the algorithm. That is, the exact code that performs the algorithm as fixed by the author. Even then to the extent the algorithm dictates the implementation, there may not be much copyrightable material.
Third, disclosure only requires enough information to enable the claims. Essentially, enough disclosure to tell the fictional person having ordinary skill in the art the steps to get from A to B. A patent would never asked to disclose source code because, frankly, that's irrelevant. The fact that the steps might amount to a million lines of code really isn't the point either.
Fourth, litigation over software patents would be considerably easier if there really was a "large body of prior art." The fact of the matter is that there isn't. At least there isn't relative to other more developed areas.
Finally, it'll be interesting to see if the KSR opinion changes your guys about the "trivial or obvious combinations." I posted a similar comment at patently-o.com. To the extent that a software patent really is just taking known processes from the real world and adding a computer (and achieving no additional benefit), those patents might be history. However, that might also be a very easy issue to get around (find a synergy--efficiency, speed, accuracy, etc.).
University of Wisconsin is actually one of the exceptions. UW does not take assignment of any inventions provided that there are not other intervening rights and obligations. For example, UW (and per the arrangement WARF) takes assignment of federally funded inventions because Bayh-Dole says it must.
Because of this (and for other reasons), universities, including UW, have policies requiring invention disclosure, whether the professor will actually get to keep title or not.
That's what happened pre-Bayh-Dole (think before the 1980s).
The problem? Very few government sponsored inventions were ever commercialized.
The other big problem? Universities didn't like the idea of giving up all their rights to sign a small grant. Universities also don't like to do the same for small commercial grants.
The really big problem? The people that know the most about the invention aren't the people in the granting government agency, but rather the inventor/inventor's institution. If you take away their rights, it's less likely they're going to be willing to seek out commercial opportunities.
Algorithms aren't protected... a particular implementation can be. If you create an "original work of authorship," and fix it in a "tangible medium of expression", you've got a copyright. Therefore, the need for a license. Assuming that the source code was sufficient to meet the copyright standards, if the "author" hadn't said anything, it would have been protected and use would have been unlicensed.
IAAL, but I didn't RTFA, so I won't tell you whether it did actually meet those requirements.
... to be sued for copyright infringement. From TFA:
Attributor analyzes the content of clients, who could range from individuals to big media companies, using a technique known as "digital fingerprinting," which determines unique and identifying characteristics of content. It uses these digital fingerprints to search its index of the Web for the content.
It is unlikely that this company will be able to upon the same defense the traditional search engines do. Putting something on the internet is not an invitation to copy or create derivative works of the materials put online. If they are essentially building gigantic databases of materials to search, they ought to be in for a world of hurt.
Moreover, at the first action they will probably be countersued for any number of other issues: breach of contract, misappropriation, trespass etc. Not to mention those companies paying for the service will also be sued for their own acts of copyright infringement in connection with this service.
I'd like to respond to this. Vertical space, unlike the horizontal, is generally ill-defined and susceptible to many different interpretations. When people try to articulate what they want in the vertical space, they find that they actually don't know what they want.
Your two examples are perfect demonstrations of this. In one case, you want "vertically centered on the view port" and in the other you want "Height to be at least the height of the viewport". To what element do you want vertical centering to apply? The viewport is most closely connected to the html element, and in reality, the two "hacks" you've mentioned use fairly straight-forward CSS once you realize what you're actually asking for.
But this only solves a couple problems. It addresses blocks of known height in special situations but does not explain how to handle inline elements.
You'll notice that even in the horizontal, certain requirements are taken to make it work (you need a width to use margin: 0 auto;). This works in the horizontal better because we know that text ought to wrap. Even the margin: 0 auto; trick uses either the width of the viewport or the width of some other element. Such things are more complicated in the vertical because we don't usually have good rules for those.
I will agree that it seems that some sort of margin-top/bottom: auto; should have been permitted in the vertical sense. You can easily get the difference between the height of container and it's child. Though this quickly produces problems too since height: 100% (you've set an absolute height) on the html/body elements would not allow for overflowing without some extra work.
Web development is simple...
on
Head Rush Ajax
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
... and just about any paradigm will do. However, the problem is that most developers don't have the basic skills in the basic tools of their trade:
html
javascript
css
If you need a new book every time some new acronym for a combination of those three things, you'd better check your skill set.
I am not YET an IP lawyer (come on, 3 mos.!!!), but...
The OP is somewhat right. This is a horrible idea. Here's why:
Should the patent owner try to sue an alleged infringer, an examination for novelty would be the initial step in any litigation. At the time of the filing of a lawsuit, the proceeding would be stayed pending the patent office's examination. That exam would take less time than a regular patent examination, because obviousness would not be considered. In addition, the alleged violator of the protection would be able to provide prior art for the examiner to consider, evidence that would substantially reduce the cost and duration of litigation, particularly when there is evidence that protection should not be granted because the technology isn't novel.
So now instead of the delay being at the USPTO, the delay is in the courthouse. If you think patent prosecutors are expensive, patent litigators are really expensive.
Not to mention, these "patents" would be wildly untested. There value would genuinely be UNKNOWN until they were litigated. You would neither be able to license nor preclude another from using until it went to litigation.
Also, ethical, reputable patent prosecutors are expensive because they tend to be adept at getting the MOST for your money. They spend a significant time drafting claims to cover an actual invention so that they are valuable.
Finally, there is some question whether this would even be constitutional under US law. Check out the clause, it grants the right for Congress to grant protection to authors (read to include inventors). The moment someone is not, Congress' ability to implement a system for them is very debatable.
I realized after about a year of "working" that the programming I was doing was not particularly fulfilling. I also realized that my grades in college were better in classes like philosophy and poli sci than in CS and engineering.
So I went back. I graduate in 3 months!
Now I'll just have to wait one year to realize that lawyering isn't very fulfilling and go back and get my MBA.
Slashdot Mirror
IAALBNYL (I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer), so let me dissect your analysis here.
First, while I'm not entirely sure your first paragraph's point, I can guess that you are upset that the entire idea of the FOO algorithm can be protected. This isn't an entirely coherent with respect to any of the intellectual property regimes anywhere. First, to the extent that a patent may apply, a patent would cover it only to the extent that it is a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition." The problem with respect to computer algorithms is that they are almost always reducible to a machine. This makes sense and why it's difficult to object to software patents on these grounds. Indeed, many of the most innovative non-software patents are essentially algorithms reduced to machines. While the Microsoft v. AT&T case didn't come out and say, "software as software is unpatentable" it was mentioned by both sides at oral arguments.
Second, to the extent that it relates to copyrights, copyright only protects a particular implementation of the algorithm. That is, the exact code that performs the algorithm as fixed by the author. Even then to the extent the algorithm dictates the implementation, there may not be much copyrightable material.
Third, disclosure only requires enough information to enable the claims. Essentially, enough disclosure to tell the fictional person having ordinary skill in the art the steps to get from A to B. A patent would never asked to disclose source code because, frankly, that's irrelevant. The fact that the steps might amount to a million lines of code really isn't the point either.
Fourth, litigation over software patents would be considerably easier if there really was a "large body of prior art." The fact of the matter is that there isn't. At least there isn't relative to other more developed areas.
Finally, it'll be interesting to see if the KSR opinion changes your guys about the "trivial or obvious combinations." I posted a similar comment at patently-o.com. To the extent that a software patent really is just taking known processes from the real world and adding a computer (and achieving no additional benefit), those patents might be history. However, that might also be a very easy issue to get around (find a synergy--efficiency, speed, accuracy, etc.).
This is probably wrong in most cases.
University of Wisconsin is actually one of the exceptions. UW does not take assignment of any inventions provided that there are not other intervening rights and obligations. For example, UW (and per the arrangement WARF) takes assignment of federally funded inventions because Bayh-Dole says it must.
Because of this (and for other reasons), universities, including UW, have policies requiring invention disclosure, whether the professor will actually get to keep title or not.
That's what happened pre-Bayh-Dole (think before the 1980s).
The problem? Very few government sponsored inventions were ever commercialized.
The other big problem? Universities didn't like the idea of giving up all their rights to sign a small grant. Universities also don't like to do the same for small commercial grants.
The really big problem? The people that know the most about the invention aren't the people in the granting government agency, but rather the inventor/inventor's institution. If you take away their rights, it's less likely they're going to be willing to seek out commercial opportunities.
Algorithms aren't protected... a particular implementation can be. If you create an "original work of authorship," and fix it in a "tangible medium of expression", you've got a copyright. Therefore, the need for a license. Assuming that the source code was sufficient to meet the copyright standards, if the "author" hadn't said anything, it would have been protected and use would have been unlicensed.
IAAL, but I didn't RTFA, so I won't tell you whether it did actually meet those requirements.
... to be sued for copyright infringement. From TFA:
It is unlikely that this company will be able to upon the same defense the traditional search engines do. Putting something on the internet is not an invitation to copy or create derivative works of the materials put online. If they are essentially building gigantic databases of materials to search, they ought to be in for a world of hurt.
Moreover, at the first action they will probably be countersued for any number of other issues: breach of contract, misappropriation, trespass etc. Not to mention those companies paying for the service will also be sued for their own acts of copyright infringement in connection with this service.
I'd like to respond to this. Vertical space, unlike the horizontal, is generally ill-defined and susceptible to many different interpretations. When people try to articulate what they want in the vertical space, they find that they actually don't know what they want.
Your two examples are perfect demonstrations of this. In one case, you want "vertically centered on the view port" and in the other you want "Height to be at least the height of the viewport". To what element do you want vertical centering to apply? The viewport is most closely connected to the html element, and in reality, the two "hacks" you've mentioned use fairly straight-forward CSS once you realize what you're actually asking for.
But this only solves a couple problems. It addresses blocks of known height in special situations but does not explain how to handle inline elements.
You'll notice that even in the horizontal, certain requirements are taken to make it work (you need a width to use margin: 0 auto;). This works in the horizontal better because we know that text ought to wrap. Even the margin: 0 auto; trick uses either the width of the viewport or the width of some other element. Such things are more complicated in the vertical because we don't usually have good rules for those.
I will agree that it seems that some sort of margin-top/bottom: auto; should have been permitted in the vertical sense. You can easily get the difference between the height of container and it's child. Though this quickly produces problems too since height: 100% (you've set an absolute height) on the html/body elements would not allow for overflowing without some extra work.
... and just about any paradigm will do. However, the problem is that most developers don't have the basic skills in the basic tools of their trade:
If you need a new book every time some new acronym for a combination of those three things, you'd better check your skill set.
The OP is somewhat right. This is a horrible idea. Here's why:
So now instead of the delay being at the USPTO, the delay is in the courthouse. If you think patent prosecutors are expensive, patent litigators are really expensive.
Not to mention, these "patents" would be wildly untested. There value would genuinely be UNKNOWN until they were litigated. You would neither be able to license nor preclude another from using until it went to litigation.
Also, ethical, reputable patent prosecutors are expensive because they tend to be adept at getting the MOST for your money. They spend a significant time drafting claims to cover an actual invention so that they are valuable.
Finally, there is some question whether this would even be constitutional under US law. Check out the clause, it grants the right for Congress to grant protection to authors (read to include inventors). The moment someone is not, Congress' ability to implement a system for them is very debatable.
I realized after about a year of "working" that the programming I was doing was not particularly fulfilling. I also realized that my grades in college were better in classes like philosophy and poli sci than in CS and engineering.
So I went back. I graduate in 3 months!
Now I'll just have to wait one year to realize that lawyering isn't very fulfilling and go back and get my MBA.