You're right, it doesn't state it, but many of us it would or least want a major reform of the way patents work. I even want code to be covered more under copyright law than under patents, but with a new category specifically designed for code.
The big difference between the Apple power adapter and the OPTi cases are that Apple actually created something tangible while. I am not a fan of squatting because it doesn't push technology forward. Sitting on a patent hoping someone else comes along to figure out how to use it just to sue their ass is a broken system. I don't find this fair.
If Marshall, TX found Apple guilty then so be it. They're appealing but will likely lose.
You have made a bunch of assumptions here, that may in part be warping your sense of what is fair.
Do you think the concept of IP is fair? That is the idea that you can design a bit of functionality to sell to others? Think about this real hard because it is at the heart of your defective thinking. Should a company like Imagination have the right to sell it's IP for the GPUs that are commonly connected to ARM cores? Realizing that the design of these GPUs is very engineering intensive and the only way you can pay for that engineering is via licensing your IP.
Think real hard here because this is the reality; much of the embedded world would not exist without IP being integrated onto CPU chips. Just think about the licensing that has to take place for an iPhone. Yes some make more than others but everybody is getting their share. The alternative is a world of thieves, and zero innovation (sort of like China right now).
What you seem to miss is the flip side of the equation. Protected IP does lead to innovation even if a few outlying cases just don't make you feel good. Could a company like Imagination start up, get funding for it's IP without the protections that the patent system affords them? For that matter how long would ARM be around if people where free to steal it's IP and build their own ARM based processors free of licensing?
What you are advocating has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Rather it feels like a pathetic attempt to justify stealing that which you don't want to pay for.
You have made a bunch of assumptions here, that may in part be warping your sense of what is fair.
Do you think the concept of IP is fair? That is the idea that you can design a bit of functionality to sell to others? Think about this real hard because it is at the heart of your defective thinking. Should a company like Imagination have the right to sell it's IP for the GPUs that are commonly connected to ARM cores? Realizing that the design of these GPUs is very engineering intensive and the only way you can pay for that engineering is via licensing your IP.
Think real hard here because this is the reality; much of the embedded world would not exist without IP being integrated onto CPU chips. Just think about the licensing that has to take place for an iPhone. Yes some make more than others but everybody is getting their share. The alternative is a world of thieves, and zero innovation (sort of like China right now).
What you seem to miss is the flip side of the equation. Protected IP does lead to innovation even if a few outlying cases just don't make you feel good. Could a company like Imagination start up, get funding for it's IP without the protections that the patent system affords them? For that matter how long would ARM be around if people where free to steal it's IP and build their own ARM based processors free of licensing?
What you are advocating has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Rather it feels like a pathetic attempt to justify stealing that which you don't want to pay for.
Dave
I have no idea where you get any of that. I clearly stated that code should not be a patent but a special case copyright. That gives and defendable rights. Patents should be reserved for tangible products. You can license your written works, too. There is nothing less fair about it.
ARM's product is their IP. At least they are coming up with designs, etc to sell to companies that actually build the chips.
Where Opti is coming up with patents and doing nothing until a company infringes on it and sues. No selling or licensing the patent, just waits and sues. Their whole business model is suing other companies. They could care less about doing something with their patents( licensing, etc).
Our patent system needs to be reformed to where companies can't create a patent and just sue. As what Opti is doing. All they are doing is suing.
Opti isn't a patent troll in the usual sense at all. In fact the only difference I can see between them and ARM is that ARM successfully sold their IP. In Optis case they where not successful so they went after what they consider to be the firms infringing on their IP.
Really the only thing of concern here is is the tech that is patented novel and original. If there is no prior art then Opti is right to sue. With no prior art the patent most likely is valid, if there is prior art then Opti will go down in flames.
As to all the idiots in this thread implying that bus snooping an cach coherency techniques are obvious, well there is a hot place in hell for you. Getting everything right in a CPU is not cake walking. Even ARM with their tiny CPUs are still learning how to make them faster, lower power and smaller. That is the very nature of IP, the thought that goes into innovation. If you guys don't think that such efforts are worth a patent then I really don't know what to say.
It's actually rather funny but some of you are advocating ideas that could easily lead to you not haveing jobs in the future. IP makes the world go around, adds wealth to the community and enables people to reap the benefits of their innovation. It is silly to take a few bad patent cases out of context and then condemn the whole system.
The question is do you condemn football due to one bad call? Or even a series of bad calls if overall the fame is being played with integrity and sportsmanship. Now some of the skinny types are probably saying what does football or sports have to do with this. It is about the point of view that a stadium of fans, the refs, and the two teams have. If the game isn't going your way your team may be more sensitive to the calls the ref makes to try keep the playing field level. On the otherhand somebody that is in the lead might appeal to that fan base in the stadium for support. Frankly Apple is good at appealing to the fan base to get support on it's position with respect to patents. Stir the fans up enough and they ignore the point of view of the refs and the opposing teams. It is amazing how easy some of you are to manipulate.
I have no idea where you get any of that. I clearly stated that code should not be a patent but a special case copyright. That gives the ownership and defendable rights. Patents should be reserved for tangible products. You can license your written works, too. There is nothing less fair about it.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was talking about code as in computer programs.
As to IP as seen in many processors these days, that is very tangible. I don't see how anybody could mis that. The IP that defines those blocks isn't any different that the drawings or schematics of old that that are required with the submittal of a patent application. There is no difference between the old days of electronics when designs where developed and licensed. Many a company made the decision to license instead of manufacture. Some times the functionality is only really useful if licensed to be included in another item.
Maybe I'm missing something here but why is IP built onto a silicon chip any different than IP that is built out of descrete transistors, resistors and capacitors. If the circuit is wiz bang new don't you think the patent protections should be the same? In either case how you specify the device in the patent application (the drawings and text) have little to do with the physical device.
In any event this sudden revulsion to the patent system seems to go in cycles. This century it is computer technology that everybody seems to think is so obvious. In the past it might have been the design of a hand plane, a quick change gearbox on a lathe or the concept of the LASER. Believe me there where people in the last and the century previous to that, complaining that xyz widget was obvious. Sometimes complaints about something being obvious are really people saying why didn't I think of that.
Being an Older guy here I've managed to run into a lot of interesting people in my time. Just out of high school I had the good fortne to spend a few months working with an engineer rebuilding machine tools. Since he use to work for a now defunct lathe builder he had a special interest in lathes. Everytime a new one would come in the shop he couldn't resist the temptation to check the gear boxes out. {Whatever turns you on}. What interested him was the multitudes of ways in which the same problem would be solved. It is an example of innovation being increased due to patents protecting other solutions. The reality is in a society where people are free to steal the ideas of others innovation slows down. Patents actually increase innovation because you need to innovate to compete legally against others.
Do some patents put up road blocks, they certainly do but road blocks are avenues to innovation. Likewise the patent system does get used in a negative way from time to time. However you don't give up on that Apple pie just because there are a few bad Apples.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was talking about code as in computer programs.
As to IP as seen in many processors these days, that is very tangible. I don't see how anybody could mis that. The IP that defines those blocks isn't any different that the drawings or schematics of old that that are required with the submittal of a patent application. There is no difference between the old days of electronics when designs where developed and licensed. Many a company made the decision to license instead of manufacture. Some times the functionality is only really useful if licensed to be included in another item.
Maybe I'm missing something here but why is IP built onto a silicon chip any different than IP that is built out of descrete transistors, resistors and capacitors. If the circuit is wiz bang new don't you think the patent protections should be the same? In either case how you specify the device in the patent application (the drawings and text) have little to do with the physical device.
In any event this sudden revulsion to the patent system seems to go in cycles. This century it is computer technology that everybody seems to think is so obvious. In the past it might have been the design of a hand plane, a quick change gearbox on a lathe or the concept of the LASER. Believe me there where people in the last and the century previous to that, complaining that xyz widget was obvious. Sometimes complaints about something being obvious are really people saying why didn't I think of that.
Being an Older guy here I've managed to run into a lot of interesting people in my time. Just out of high school I had the good fortne to spend a few months working with an engineer rebuilding machine tools. Since he use to work for a now defunct lathe builder he had a special interest in lathes. Everytime a new one would come in the shop he couldn't resist the temptation to check the gear boxes out. {Whatever turns you on}. What interested him was the multitudes of ways in which the same problem would be solved. It is an example of innovation being increased due to patents protecting other solutions. The reality is in a society where people are free to steal the ideas of others innovation slows down. Patents actually increase innovation because you need to innovate to compete legally against others.
Do some patents put up road blocks, they certainly do but road blocks are avenues to innovation. Likewise the patent system does get used in a negative way from time to time. However you don't give up on that Apple pie just because there are a few bad Apples.
I?m not going to jump through it trying to determine exactly how it works and as I previously stated I go by the court?s ruling on this.
But if it is a tangible invention as to how processors work (which makes it patentable in my eyes) then why was Apple sued? I no such HW use by Apple. That doesn?t mean they didn?t develop something, but I am leaning toward this being nothing but code with the processing unit.
Code should be a special copyright while tangible inventions should be patented. I don?t see tabs in browsers or buy buttons on websites as valid patents. If the courts say okay, then so be it, but I disagree.
Here is the Patent Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced?
Many judges in patent cases look at this, as the whole idea of patents to begin with is to protect your product you make, not to patent other peoples ideas then sue them because they have large amounts of money.
You seem to be mistaken a at least two points. The company did not patent someone else's idea, they patented their own idea.
Secondly, the purpose of patents is to protect Intellectual Property, which may or may not have anything to do with an actual object that gets created.
For example, patents are often conferred to processes. In molecular biology, the process of PCR is patented.
I?m not going to jump through it trying to determine exactly how it works and as I previously stated I go by the court?s ruling on this.
But if it is a tangible invention as to how processors work (which makes it patentable in my eyes) then why was Apple sued? I no such HW use by Apple. That doesn?t mean they didn?t develop something, but I am leaning toward this being nothing but code with the processing unit.
Code should be a special copyright while tangible inventions should be patented. I don?t see tabs in browsers or buy buttons on websites as valid patents. If the courts say okay, then so be it, but I disagree.
Here is the Patent Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced?
For example, patents are often conferred to processes. In molecular biology, the process of PCR is patented.
That is a valid thing to patent because it is material, even if it isn?t palpable. My previous simple use of the world tangible may not fit everyone?s definition.
But you are talking about "should be" and "in your eyes", not the way the law is as it currently stands.
Obviously. I?ve thought I made it clear what my thoughts and feelings are the problems with calling code a patent. I even stated that I stand behind any court decision on the subject because the problem is not with the courts but with the law.
That is a valid thing to patent because it is material, even if it isn?t palpable. My previous simple use of the world tangible may not fit everyone?s definition.
Ok, but then what is the difference between process and code? Would you argue that process should be copyrighted instead of patented?
Obviously. I?ve thought I made it clear what my thoughts and feelings are the problems with calling code a patent. I even stated that I stand behind any court decision on the subject because the problem is not with the courts but with the law.
You have made your views clear, and they represent an interesting idea. however, you HAD made the same point in a couple of earlier posts.
Interesting fact. Apparently the market capitol for Opti is only something like 45 million. Apple should just buy them out since they actually DO use the patent.
I don't care how you color it. Opti only exists now to exercise the patent. They don't use the patent and they don't produce anything. They may not have started out as patent trolls, but they are one now.
You have made your views clear, and they represent an interesting idea. however, you HAD made the same point in a couple of earlier posts.
Yes, it's becoming trivial to get a patent. When you can patent the 'one-click checkout' shopping experience, then something is broken. This is the very reason the Supreme court is currently hearing arguments on this very topic.
Yes, it's becoming trivial to get a patent. When you can patent the 'one-click checkout' shopping experience, then something is broken. This is the very reason the Supreme court is currently hearing arguments on this very topic.
Do you have a patent? Have you ever applied for a patent?
Ok, but then what is the difference between process and code? Would you argue that process should be copyrighted instead of patented?
A process used to interact with the physical world is different than a process used to interact soley in a virtual state. If that virtual process directly interacts with the physical world then that can be patented because its ?coporealistic?.
PPS: DJRumpy makes a point. They filed in Marshall, TX and reportedly haven?t doing anythign but go after patent infringement since 2003. I remember when Apple?s unofficial motto "was ?litigate, not innovate?. This does raise some flags.
A process used to interact with the physical world is different than a process used to interact soley in a virtual state. If that virtual process directly interacts with the physical world then that can be patented because its “coporealistic”.
.
PPS: DJRumpy makes a point. They filed in Marshall, TX and reportedly haven’t doing anythign but go after patent infringement since 2003. I remember when Apple’s unofficial motto "was “litigate, not innovate”. This does raise some flags.
We simply have a philosophical difference then. I do not make the "virtual/coporealistic" distinction in cases like this
Yes DJRumpy makes a point, but unfortunately it is not a valid point in the current context.
Here is the thing I am in biomedical research, and I can tell you that the whole patent/copyright thing is not a trivial process. Furthermore, I have no plans to "make" something with my research. OTOH, if someone takes anything I have copyrighted/patented and uses it without my permission/acknowledgement, I would be pissed, because alot of time, effort, and money has gone into what I have done.
Just food for thought, and I may be completely wrong, but maybe East Texas is the only place in the country where the courts are not stacked against the small guy in these cases.
I would be shocked if there were not a couple of districts where the Big Corporations file their suit because they pretty much always win in those districts.
As to Justice for sale - it is and always has been. When the well heeled can buy the best legal team and the small guy can't then Justice is for sale.
Or perhaps the fact that Marshall is a well known destination for known patent trolls, maybe the more obvious answer?
We simply have a philosophical difference then. I do not make the "virtual/coporealistic" distinction in cases like this
Yes DJRumpy makes a point, but unfortunately it is not a valid point in the current context.
Here is the thing I am in biomedical research, and I can tell you that the whole patent/copyright thing is not a trivial process. Furthermore, I have no plans to "make" something with my research. OTOH, if someone takes anything I have copyrighted/patented and uses it without my permission/acknowledgement, I would be pissed, because alot of time, effort, and money has gone into what I have done.
There is now some changes to software patents in place. How effective this will be or if this will cascade into even more changes in the near future remains to be seen…
There is now some changes to software patents in place. How effective this will be or if this will cascade into even more changes in the near future remains to be seen?
Comments
You're right, it doesn't state it, but many of us it would or least want a major reform of the way patents work. I even want code to be covered more under copyright law than under patents, but with a new category specifically designed for code.
The big difference between the Apple power adapter and the OPTi cases are that Apple actually created something tangible while. I am not a fan of squatting because it doesn't push technology forward. Sitting on a patent hoping someone else comes along to figure out how to use it just to sue their ass is a broken system. I don't find this fair.
If Marshall, TX found Apple guilty then so be it. They're appealing but will likely lose.
You have made a bunch of assumptions here, that may in part be warping your sense of what is fair.
Do you think the concept of IP is fair? That is the idea that you can design a bit of functionality to sell to others? Think about this real hard because it is at the heart of your defective thinking. Should a company like Imagination have the right to sell it's IP for the GPUs that are commonly connected to ARM cores? Realizing that the design of these GPUs is very engineering intensive and the only way you can pay for that engineering is via licensing your IP.
Think real hard here because this is the reality; much of the embedded world would not exist without IP being integrated onto CPU chips. Just think about the licensing that has to take place for an iPhone. Yes some make more than others but everybody is getting their share. The alternative is a world of thieves, and zero innovation (sort of like China right now).
What you seem to miss is the flip side of the equation. Protected IP does lead to innovation even if a few outlying cases just don't make you feel good. Could a company like Imagination start up, get funding for it's IP without the protections that the patent system affords them? For that matter how long would ARM be around if people where free to steal it's IP and build their own ARM based processors free of licensing?
What you are advocating has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Rather it feels like a pathetic attempt to justify stealing that which you don't want to pay for.
Dave
You have made a bunch of assumptions here, that may in part be warping your sense of what is fair.
Do you think the concept of IP is fair? That is the idea that you can design a bit of functionality to sell to others? Think about this real hard because it is at the heart of your defective thinking. Should a company like Imagination have the right to sell it's IP for the GPUs that are commonly connected to ARM cores? Realizing that the design of these GPUs is very engineering intensive and the only way you can pay for that engineering is via licensing your IP.
Think real hard here because this is the reality; much of the embedded world would not exist without IP being integrated onto CPU chips. Just think about the licensing that has to take place for an iPhone. Yes some make more than others but everybody is getting their share. The alternative is a world of thieves, and zero innovation (sort of like China right now).
What you seem to miss is the flip side of the equation. Protected IP does lead to innovation even if a few outlying cases just don't make you feel good. Could a company like Imagination start up, get funding for it's IP without the protections that the patent system affords them? For that matter how long would ARM be around if people where free to steal it's IP and build their own ARM based processors free of licensing?
What you are advocating has absolutely nothing to do with fairness. Rather it feels like a pathetic attempt to justify stealing that which you don't want to pay for.
Dave
I have no idea where you get any of that. I clearly stated that code should not be a patent but a special case copyright. That gives and defendable rights. Patents should be reserved for tangible products. You can license your written works, too. There is nothing less fair about it.
ARM's product is their IP. At least they are coming up with designs, etc to sell to companies that actually build the chips.
Where Opti is coming up with patents and doing nothing until a company infringes on it and sues. No selling or licensing the patent, just waits and sues. Their whole business model is suing other companies. They could care less about doing something with their patents( licensing, etc).
Our patent system needs to be reformed to where companies can't create a patent and just sue. As what Opti is doing. All they are doing is suing.
Opti isn't a patent troll in the usual sense at all. In fact the only difference I can see between them and ARM is that ARM successfully sold their IP. In Optis case they where not successful so they went after what they consider to be the firms infringing on their IP.
Really the only thing of concern here is is the tech that is patented novel and original. If there is no prior art then Opti is right to sue. With no prior art the patent most likely is valid, if there is prior art then Opti will go down in flames.
As to all the idiots in this thread implying that bus snooping an cach coherency techniques are obvious, well there is a hot place in hell for you. Getting everything right in a CPU is not cake walking. Even ARM with their tiny CPUs are still learning how to make them faster, lower power and smaller. That is the very nature of IP, the thought that goes into innovation. If you guys don't think that such efforts are worth a patent then I really don't know what to say.
It's actually rather funny but some of you are advocating ideas that could easily lead to you not haveing jobs in the future. IP makes the world go around, adds wealth to the community and enables people to reap the benefits of their innovation. It is silly to take a few bad patent cases out of context and then condemn the whole system.
The question is do you condemn football due to one bad call? Or even a series of bad calls if overall the fame is being played with integrity and sportsmanship. Now some of the skinny types are probably saying what does football or sports have to do with this. It is about the point of view that a stadium of fans, the refs, and the two teams have. If the game isn't going your way your team may be more sensitive to the calls the ref makes to try keep the playing field level. On the otherhand somebody that is in the lead might appeal to that fan base in the stadium for support. Frankly Apple is good at appealing to the fan base to get support on it's position with respect to patents. Stir the fans up enough and they ignore the point of view of the refs and the opposing teams. It is amazing how easy some of you are to manipulate.
Dave
I have no idea where you get any of that. I clearly stated that code should not be a patent but a special case copyright. That gives the ownership and defendable rights. Patents should be reserved for tangible products. You can license your written works, too. There is nothing less fair about it.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was talking about code as in computer programs.
As to IP as seen in many processors these days, that is very tangible. I don't see how anybody could mis that. The IP that defines those blocks isn't any different that the drawings or schematics of old that that are required with the submittal of a patent application. There is no difference between the old days of electronics when designs where developed and licensed. Many a company made the decision to license instead of manufacture. Some times the functionality is only really useful if licensed to be included in another item.
Maybe I'm missing something here but why is IP built onto a silicon chip any different than IP that is built out of descrete transistors, resistors and capacitors. If the circuit is wiz bang new don't you think the patent protections should be the same? In either case how you specify the device in the patent application (the drawings and text) have little to do with the physical device.
In any event this sudden revulsion to the patent system seems to go in cycles. This century it is computer technology that everybody seems to think is so obvious. In the past it might have been the design of a hand plane, a quick change gearbox on a lathe or the concept of the LASER. Believe me there where people in the last and the century previous to that, complaining that xyz widget was obvious. Sometimes complaints about something being obvious are really people saying why didn't I think of that.
Being an Older guy here I've managed to run into a lot of interesting people in my time. Just out of high school I had the good fortne to spend a few months working with an engineer rebuilding machine tools. Since he use to work for a now defunct lathe builder he had a special interest in lathes. Everytime a new one would come in the shop he couldn't resist the temptation to check the gear boxes out. {Whatever turns you on}. What interested him was the multitudes of ways in which the same problem would be solved. It is an example of innovation being increased due to patents protecting other solutions. The reality is in a society where people are free to steal the ideas of others innovation slows down. Patents actually increase innovation because you need to innovate to compete legally against others.
Do some patents put up road blocks, they certainly do but road blocks are avenues to innovation. Likewise the patent system does get used in a negative way from time to time. However you don't give up on that Apple pie just because there are a few bad Apples.
Dave
Because when people patent an idea, with nothing behind it but words and a weak schematic, with an obvious process, it's patent trolling.
'Predictive snooping of cache'. Really?
You seem to be of the opinion that getting a patent is a trivial exercise, and that any idea can be patented. Such is not the case.
As was pointed out below, if it is all "so obvious" why was it not patented before.
The only reason I can that people are upset is because it is Apple. I bet if this were the "evil" Microsoft, people would be singing a different tune.
I'm not sure where you got the idea I was talking about code as in computer programs.
As to IP as seen in many processors these days, that is very tangible. I don't see how anybody could mis that. The IP that defines those blocks isn't any different that the drawings or schematics of old that that are required with the submittal of a patent application. There is no difference between the old days of electronics when designs where developed and licensed. Many a company made the decision to license instead of manufacture. Some times the functionality is only really useful if licensed to be included in another item.
Maybe I'm missing something here but why is IP built onto a silicon chip any different than IP that is built out of descrete transistors, resistors and capacitors. If the circuit is wiz bang new don't you think the patent protections should be the same? In either case how you specify the device in the patent application (the drawings and text) have little to do with the physical device.
In any event this sudden revulsion to the patent system seems to go in cycles. This century it is computer technology that everybody seems to think is so obvious. In the past it might have been the design of a hand plane, a quick change gearbox on a lathe or the concept of the LASER. Believe me there where people in the last and the century previous to that, complaining that xyz widget was obvious. Sometimes complaints about something being obvious are really people saying why didn't I think of that.
Being an Older guy here I've managed to run into a lot of interesting people in my time. Just out of high school I had the good fortne to spend a few months working with an engineer rebuilding machine tools. Since he use to work for a now defunct lathe builder he had a special interest in lathes. Everytime a new one would come in the shop he couldn't resist the temptation to check the gear boxes out. {Whatever turns you on}. What interested him was the multitudes of ways in which the same problem would be solved. It is an example of innovation being increased due to patents protecting other solutions. The reality is in a society where people are free to steal the ideas of others innovation slows down. Patents actually increase innovation because you need to innovate to compete legally against others.
Do some patents put up road blocks, they certainly do but road blocks are avenues to innovation. Likewise the patent system does get used in a negative way from time to time. However you don't give up on that Apple pie just because there are a few bad Apples.
Here is the patent...I?m not going to jump through it trying to determine exactly how it works and as I previously stated I go by the court?s ruling on this.
But if it is a tangible invention as to how processors work (which makes it patentable in my eyes) then why was Apple sued? I no such HW use by Apple. That doesn?t mean they didn?t develop something, but I am leaning toward this being nothing but code with the processing unit.
Code should be a special copyright while tangible inventions should be patented. I don?t see tabs in browsers or buy buttons on websites as valid patents. If the courts say okay, then so be it, but I disagree.
Here is the Patent Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced?
Many judges in patent cases look at this, as the whole idea of patents to begin with is to protect your product you make, not to patent other peoples ideas then sue them because they have large amounts of money.
You seem to be mistaken a at least two points. The company did not patent someone else's idea, they patented their own idea.
Secondly, the purpose of patents is to protect Intellectual Property, which may or may not have anything to do with an actual object that gets created.
For example, patents are often conferred to processes. In molecular biology, the process of PCR is patented.
Here is the patent...I?m not going to jump through it trying to determine exactly how it works and as I previously stated I go by the court?s ruling on this.
But if it is a tangible invention as to how processors work (which makes it patentable in my eyes) then why was Apple sued? I no such HW use by Apple. That doesn?t mean they didn?t develop something, but I am leaning toward this being nothing but code with the processing unit.
Code should be a special copyright while tangible inventions should be patented. I don?t see tabs in browsers or buy buttons on websites as valid patents. If the courts say okay, then so be it, but I disagree.
Here is the Patent Reform Act of 2005 that was introduced?
But you are talking about "should be" and "in your eyes", not the way the law is as it currently stands.
For example, patents are often conferred to processes. In molecular biology, the process of PCR is patented.
That is a valid thing to patent because it is material, even if it isn?t palpable. My previous simple use of the world tangible may not fit everyone?s definition.
But you are talking about "should be" and "in your eyes", not the way the law is as it currently stands.
Obviously. I?ve thought I made it clear what my thoughts and feelings are the problems with calling code a patent. I even stated that I stand behind any court decision on the subject because the problem is not with the courts but with the law.
That is a valid thing to patent because it is material, even if it isn?t palpable. My previous simple use of the world tangible may not fit everyone?s definition.
Ok, but then what is the difference between process and code? Would you argue that process should be copyrighted instead of patented?
Obviously. I?ve thought I made it clear what my thoughts and feelings are the problems with calling code a patent. I even stated that I stand behind any court decision on the subject because the problem is not with the courts but with the law.
You have made your views clear, and they represent an interesting idea. however, you HAD made the same point in a couple of earlier posts.
I don't care how you color it. Opti only exists now to exercise the patent. They don't use the patent and they don't produce anything. They may not have started out as patent trolls, but they are one now.
You have made your views clear, and they represent an interesting idea. however, you HAD made the same point in a couple of earlier posts.
Yes, it's becoming trivial to get a patent. When you can patent the 'one-click checkout' shopping experience, then something is broken. This is the very reason the Supreme court is currently hearing arguments on this very topic.
Yes, it's becoming trivial to get a patent. When you can patent the 'one-click checkout' shopping experience, then something is broken. This is the very reason the Supreme court is currently hearing arguments on this very topic.
Do you have a patent? Have you ever applied for a patent?
Ok, but then what is the difference between process and code? Would you argue that process should be copyrighted instead of patented?
A process used to interact with the physical world is different than a process used to interact soley in a virtual state. If that virtual process directly interacts with the physical world then that can be patented because its ?coporealistic?.
PPS: DJRumpy makes a point. They filed in Marshall, TX and reportedly haven?t doing anythign but go after patent infringement since 2003. I remember when Apple?s unofficial motto "was ?litigate, not innovate?. This does raise some flags.
A process used to interact with the physical world is different than a process used to interact soley in a virtual state. If that virtual process directly interacts with the physical world then that can be patented because its “coporealistic”.
.
PPS: DJRumpy makes a point. They filed in Marshall, TX and reportedly haven’t doing anythign but go after patent infringement since 2003. I remember when Apple’s unofficial motto "was “litigate, not innovate”. This does raise some flags.
We simply have a philosophical difference then. I do not make the "virtual/coporealistic" distinction in cases like this
Yes DJRumpy makes a point, but unfortunately it is not a valid point in the current context.
Here is the thing I am in biomedical research, and I can tell you that the whole patent/copyright thing is not a trivial process. Furthermore, I have no plans to "make" something with my research. OTOH, if someone takes anything I have copyrighted/patented and uses it without my permission/acknowledgement, I would be pissed, because alot of time, effort, and money has gone into what I have done.
Just food for thought, and I may be completely wrong, but maybe East Texas is the only place in the country where the courts are not stacked against the small guy in these cases.
I would be shocked if there were not a couple of districts where the Big Corporations file their suit because they pretty much always win in those districts.
As to Justice for sale - it is and always has been. When the well heeled can buy the best legal team and the small guy can't then Justice is for sale.
Or perhaps the fact that Marshall is a well known destination for known patent trolls, maybe the more obvious answer?
We simply have a philosophical difference then. I do not make the "virtual/coporealistic" distinction in cases like this
Yes DJRumpy makes a point, but unfortunately it is not a valid point in the current context.
Here is the thing I am in biomedical research, and I can tell you that the whole patent/copyright thing is not a trivial process. Furthermore, I have no plans to "make" something with my research. OTOH, if someone takes anything I have copyrighted/patented and uses it without my permission/acknowledgement, I would be pissed, because alot of time, effort, and money has gone into what I have done.
There is now some changes to software patents in place. How effective this will be or if this will cascade into even more changes in the near future remains to be seen…
There is now some changes to software patents in place. How effective this will be or if this will cascade into even more changes in the near future remains to be seen?
I read about this on Slashdot. I'll be curious to see how it affects rulings coming out of East Texas (if at all).
I don't think any software should be patentable. Copyright-able, yes, but no patents.