Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
Out of curiosity, have you ever written a line of code in your life?
You could have a "method" of performing something and if you gave the task to 10 programmers you could end up with 10 different samples of code. Each one could be copyrightable since they would all be different. This is why you're wrong on the idea of copyright keeping the "copyists" away.
I posted this before, but it's relevant in this discussion (I'll try to keep this short).
I worked at software company A. After many years I switched to work for company B. While at company B I came across the same problem that neeed solving that I previously solved at company A. To save time I "re-used" the same methods I figured out for company A and made a note in my "to-do" list that I have to re-write that portion of code before the software was released since it violated IP of company A.
I did this to save time to be able to get to a point where we could test the software with the intention of replacing it later on. However, before that point came my employer found out what I did and was not happy. Even though they understood my reasoning they said if the code was released they could be in serious trouble.
If company A had copyright protection on the software, then I could simply make a few changes to the software and company B could use the same ideas (IP) without worrying about copyright issues. This is why it's important to have protection for systems and methods, rather than the code itself.
Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.
And this further illustrates why this is such a difficult issue for our current laws and legal system to sort out. What you are calling an "invention", many others would call an "idea".
Let me offer this example from another era so that the discussion can be removed a bit from the Apple/Motorola case:
Can you imagine 100 years ago a baseball pitcher being granted a patent on a curve ball? Applying what you wrote, the ideal is "how do I make a pitch curve?" and the invention is "spinning the ball as I release it". I can say with full certainty that a curve ball could never have been patented (as we all know it never was). Anybody with a baseball, in theory, can spin a baseball pitch and maybe even make it curve. Likewise, anyone with a phone can slide their finger across the phone. That's why I don't believe it's an invention.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-John Carmack
How is that relevant? Patents are not supposed to be issued for obvious methods.
And this further illustrates why this is such a difficult issue for our current laws and legal system to sort out. What you are calling an "invention", many others would call an "idea".
Not anyone who's the least bit conversant in intellectual property.
Let me offer this example from another era so that the discussion can be removed a bit from the Apple/Motorola case:
Can you imagine 100 years ago a baseball pitcher being granted a patent on a curve ball? Applying what you wrote, the ideal is "how do I make a pitch curve?" and the invention is "spinning the ball as I release it". I can say with full certainty that a curve ball could never have been patented (as we all know it never was). Anybody with a baseball, in theory, can spin a baseball pitch and maybe even make it curve. Likewise, anyone with a phone can slide their finger across the phone. That's why I don't believe it's an invention.
And you'd be wrong.
If throwing a curve ball met the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, it could have been patented. The law is pretty clear on what requirements an invention needs to meet to be patentable. If your invention meets those requirements, it is patentable - whether you like the result or not.
And your logic is ridiculous. By your logic, NOTHING should ever be patentable. After all, once someone explains how to do it, anyone with access to a machine shop or IC foundry could make anything that's covered by patents. That is why "ability to copy an invention" does not preclude something being patentable.
It's also quite funny how Fandroids are praising this judge all of a sudden, yet they were completely trashing that other judge who granted the injunctions against Samsung recently.
Yes. It's pretty much the same thing over and over. Fandroids are the biggest hypocrites. Siri was stupid because people "look stupid talking to their phones'. Of course now that Samsung and Google have something similiar, it's "actually pretty neat".
This judge should be disbarred for allowing his personal f'ing feelings to interfere with a legal decision. The guy is worthless.
Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
Addendum:
However, substantive mastery of math and the sciences is no guarantee of quality thinking outside of that particular area. The habits of thought that brought this mastery must likewise be applied to the soft areas. I assume, without evidence, that a majority of those commenting on this site have at least mastered some aspects of IT. It is therefore disappointing to read the opinions and confusion expressed about IP laws: trademarks, copyrights (literature and computer programs, algorithms), patents (there are many kinds (business methods, utility, design, biological)), trade secret, NDAs (contracts). Different IP laws protect different kinds, and properties of IT products.
You all really need to put some effort into the IP areas, and stop making statements regarding these areas until you do.
As someone who has earned mathematics, science and legal degrees and skills, I understand the hard work necessary to have acquired some degree of mastery in these areas, but there is no shortcut. IP laws are quite difficult, made more so by opinions of those in power and with influence without any STEM knowledge.
Posner believes in the mechanisms of government over people. He's a dangerous person... the kind of vile person that usually ends up in Congress.
Posner's right. What we need are strong copyright and trademark laws - patent laws are too arbitrary, too difficult to enforce, and end up creating these huge legal deadlocks. I think that the comparison to pharma is correct - trademark laws aren't going to protect a drug that a company spent $500 million bringing to market, when a generic company can synthesize it for $2 a pill.
Nonsense. The recent changes to patent law ("first to file" instead of "first to invent") will eliminate many of the legal cases. It should vastly increase the amount of buying and selling of IP, though.
Not anyone who's the least bit conversant in intellectual property.
And you'd be wrong.
If throwing a curve ball met the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, it could have been patented. The law is pretty clear on what requirements an invention needs to meet to be patentable. If your invention meets those requirements, it is patentable - whether you like the result or not.
And your logic is ridiculous. By your logic, NOTHING should ever be patentable. After all, once someone explains how to do it, anyone with access to a machine shop or IC foundry could make anything that's covered by patents. That is why "ability to copy an invention" does not preclude something being patentable.
I already gave an example of the kinds of things that patents can be issued for. Go read my prior post.
How is that relevant? Patents are not supposed to be issued for obvious methods.
Without getting into a debate that I'm not really equipped to get into, I want to at least point out two things.
a) What he is specifically pointing out is that the uniqueness of a solution is often simply in the uniqueness of the problem and the tools/resources available.
b) What is obvious to John Carmack might not be obvious to you. Why should intelligent people be held back from creating things because they can more quickly recognize/formulate solutions which exceed whatever threshold "obvious" happens to be at the moment?
My knowledge in all things regarding patent law is non-existent. However, having read a lot of these patent war articles it is obvious that something needs to be overhauled. The first thing that comes to mind is the length of time that a patent is protected. I can understand that 200 (even 50) years ago, protecting something for a period of 20 years was totally understandable. But we are now in a time where 5 years in the tech world, is the distant past from where we are. I'd argue that once patented you've got 7 years to make it all you can.
Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.
How long did it take you to come up with that list of ideas? They are at least as novel as Slide to Unlock. If you were to pay some money to patent all of those, do you think that you would deserve a 20 year monopoly on all of those methods of unlocking a phone? That's 6 patents, that'd cost you about $20,000. Not a ton of money. Heck, you could probably patent "recognizing a predefined pattern from the accelerometer to unlock a phone.", and only need one patent for #3, 4 and 5. How would you unlock a phone now?
Copyrights (along with trademarks) are absolutely used to protect software. Apple has copyrights on their branding, iconography, logos, fonts, sounds, marketing slogans, etc. - ie. the stuff that makes the iPhone the iPhone. Likewise, it would be incredibly illegal for someone to write an iOS emulator and sell Siri on an Android device without Apple's approval. Trademarks prevent other people from saying "slide to unlock" on the device screen. Design patents provide even further protection. I think that this is more than sufficient.
Patenting "sliding to unlock" is like patenting "using a pill to cure a headache". Sure, there are countless ways to get drugs into your body, but do you think such a patent would be fair or reasonable?
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
I didn't read the entire text of the speech, but this line is troubling in the context of his just having thrown out a patent-related case. It's not a judge's job to decide what laws we "really need" or should have. It's his job to fairly apply the laws that we do have. This certainly raises the question as to whether he stepped over that line in this case. The fact that he "only uses his iPhone for mail" is somewhat troubling too. Doesn't sound like the best guy to understand the implications of software innovation. It's also troubling that he didn't get the Apple-Motorola case by the luck of the draw but went out of his way to take the case in the first place. He used his influence to take a high-profile software patent case; he dismisses said case; and then goes on the record saying that he doesn't believe we actually need software patents. Well, perhaps we don't need judges legislating from the bench either.
Your post is most refreshing. Thank you for attempting to illuminate in this climate of wild wild west thinking and culture of getting something for nothing.
And what happens when that date of expiry rolls around? Disney forces Congress to extend it. Disney will always force Congress to extend copyright. Therefore copyright is permanent.
And don't complain about my use of 'always' there. Compared to some of the other atrocities committed by Disney that have gone completely unchecked and ignored, their ability to pay off people to extend copyright terms is small change. They'll get their extension.
Ahhh I see, you use hypothetical or imaginary realities to base your arguments on, rather than actual ones. That explains a lot of the "logical arguments" tossed around here. This place beats the Onion for trenchant satire.
How long did it take you to come up with that list of ideas? They are at least as novel as Slide to Unlock. If you were to pay some money to patent all of those, do you think that you would deserve a 20 year monopoly on all of those methods of unlocking a phone? That's 6 patents, that'd cost you about $20,000. Not a ton of money. Heck, you could probably patent "recognizing a predefined pattern from the accelerometer to unlock a phone.", and only need one patent for #3, 4 and 5. How would you unlock a phone now?
If I were the first person to think up those ideas, if they were determined to be non-obvious, and I were willing to spend the money, why shouldn't I be able to get patents? Our system allows for patents that meet the specific requirements for novelty. If someone comes up with something novel and non-obvious, they SHOULD be able to get a patent. Why do you have a problem with that?
Copyrights (along with trademarks) are absolutely used to protect software. Apple has copyrights on their branding, iconography, logos, fonts, sounds, marketing slogans, etc. - ie. the stuff that makes the iPhone the iPhone. Likewise, it would be incredibly illegal for someone to write an iOS emulator and sell Siri on an Android device without Apple's approval. Trademarks prevent other people from saying "slide to unlock" on the device screen. Design patents provide even further protection. I think that this is more than sufficient.
I never said that copyrights couldn't be used to protect software. I said that copyrights protect different things than patents - which is true.
As for making an iOS emulator, there's no law against that. There may be contractual agreements that prohibit it (which may or may not be enforceable), but simply making an OS emulator is perfectly legal.
Patenting "sliding to unlock" is like patenting "using a pill to cure a headache". Sure, there are countless ways to get drugs into your body, but do you think such a patent would be fair or reasonable?
No, it's not. You're not thinking about this clearly. To use your analogy:
"unlocking your phone" is equivalent to "taking a pill to cure a headache"
"Slide to unlock" is equivalent to "taking a very specific, patented pill to cure a headache".
The first is an idea. The second is a specific implementation. If you can't comprehend such a simple concept, you really out to sit back and learn.
An activist judge is any judge who issues an opinion one doesn't agree with
No, an activist judge who does more than the law allows him to do. Under the US Constitution, a judge's job is to INTERPRET the law. A judge who says "I don't like the law" and then refuses to enforce it is an activist judge.
Again, still not never, ever. What will happen in the future is only conjecture. 'Cos you know, if history teaches us anything, its that things always stay the same over the course of a hundred years.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Of course it's worthy of protection. A copyright will will keep the "copyists" away, and it's pretty easy to identify infringement when it happens. No one should be permitted to copy the software you've written if it's original. A copyright protects against that, and for a whole lot longer.
Out of curiosity, have you ever written a line of code in your life?
You could have a "method" of performing something and if you gave the task to 10 programmers you could end up with 10 different samples of code. Each one could be copyrightable since they would all be different. This is why you're wrong on the idea of copyright keeping the "copyists" away.
I posted this before, but it's relevant in this discussion (I'll try to keep this short).
I worked at software company A. After many years I switched to work for company B. While at company B I came across the same problem that neeed solving that I previously solved at company A. To save time I "re-used" the same methods I figured out for company A and made a note in my "to-do" list that I have to re-write that portion of code before the software was released since it violated IP of company A.
I did this to save time to be able to get to a point where we could test the software with the intention of replacing it later on. However, before that point came my employer found out what I did and was not happy. Even though they understood my reasoning they said if the code was released they could be in serious trouble.
If company A had copyright protection on the software, then I could simply make a few changes to the software and company B could use the same ideas (IP) without worrying about copyright issues. This is why it's important to have protection for systems and methods, rather than the code itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.
And this further illustrates why this is such a difficult issue for our current laws and legal system to sort out. What you are calling an "invention", many others would call an "idea".
Let me offer this example from another era so that the discussion can be removed a bit from the Apple/Motorola case:
Can you imagine 100 years ago a baseball pitcher being granted a patent on a curve ball? Applying what you wrote, the ideal is "how do I make a pitch curve?" and the invention is "spinning the ball as I release it". I can say with full certainty that a curve ball could never have been patented (as we all know it never was). Anybody with a baseball, in theory, can spin a baseball pitch and maybe even make it curve. Likewise, anyone with a phone can slide their finger across the phone. That's why I don't believe it's an invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwjvan
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
-John Carmack
How is that relevant? Patents are not supposed to be issued for obvious methods.
Not anyone who's the least bit conversant in intellectual property.
And you'd be wrong.
If throwing a curve ball met the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, it could have been patented. The law is pretty clear on what requirements an invention needs to meet to be patentable. If your invention meets those requirements, it is patentable - whether you like the result or not.
And your logic is ridiculous. By your logic, NOTHING should ever be patentable. After all, once someone explains how to do it, anyone with access to a machine shop or IC foundry could make anything that's covered by patents. That is why "ability to copy an invention" does not preclude something being patentable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
It's also quite funny how Fandroids are praising this judge all of a sudden, yet they were completely trashing that other judge who granted the injunctions against Samsung recently.
Yes. It's pretty much the same thing over and over. Fandroids are the biggest hypocrites. Siri was stupid because people "look stupid talking to their phones'. Of course now that Samsung and Google have something similiar, it's "actually pretty neat".
This judge should be disbarred for allowing his personal f'ing feelings to interfere with a legal decision. The guy is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Interesting.
It's not just "interesting", it's insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Like most (really almost all) lawyers, judges, politicians and other power brokers, who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate, Posner was an English major (others of like ilk are history or political "science" or journalism or business majors) in college, then got his law degree from Harvard. He's very persuasive among the substantively incompetent.
Addendum:
However, substantive mastery of math and the sciences is no guarantee of quality thinking outside of that particular area. The habits of thought that brought this mastery must likewise be applied to the soft areas. I assume, without evidence, that a majority of those commenting on this site have at least mastered some aspects of IT. It is therefore disappointing to read the opinions and confusion expressed about IP laws: trademarks, copyrights (literature and computer programs, algorithms), patents (there are many kinds (business methods, utility, design, biological)), trade secret, NDAs (contracts). Different IP laws protect different kinds, and properties of IT products.
You all really need to put some effort into the IP areas, and stop making statements regarding these areas until you do.
As someone who has earned mathematics, science and legal degrees and skills, I understand the hard work necessary to have acquired some degree of mastery in these areas, but there is no shortcut. IP laws are quite difficult, made more so by opinions of those in power and with influence without any STEM knowledge.
Posner believes in the mechanisms of government over people. He's a dangerous person... the kind of vile person that usually ends up in Congress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
It's funny - I was just thinking how the legal system is plagued by a proliferation of laws...
I wonder whether Judge Judy is retiring soon...? It'd be nice to find just the right spot for this gentleman's dotage.
As long as he can be kept in a padded cell, he'll be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth
Posner's right. What we need are strong copyright and trademark laws - patent laws are too arbitrary, too difficult to enforce, and end up creating these huge legal deadlocks. I think that the comparison to pharma is correct - trademark laws aren't going to protect a drug that a company spent $500 million bringing to market, when a generic company can synthesize it for $2 a pill.
Nonsense. The recent changes to patent law ("first to file" instead of "first to invent") will eliminate many of the legal cases. It should vastly increase the amount of buying and selling of IP, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not anyone who's the least bit conversant in intellectual property.
And you'd be wrong.
If throwing a curve ball met the requirements of novelty and non-obviousness, it could have been patented. The law is pretty clear on what requirements an invention needs to meet to be patentable. If your invention meets those requirements, it is patentable - whether you like the result or not.
And your logic is ridiculous. By your logic, NOTHING should ever be patentable. After all, once someone explains how to do it, anyone with access to a machine shop or IC foundry could make anything that's covered by patents. That is why "ability to copy an invention" does not preclude something being patentable.
I already gave an example of the kinds of things that patents can be issued for. Go read my prior post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Again, you're missing the point. That patent does not cover an IDEA - which is what someone was asking about earlier.
that patent link i referenced came from http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/10/30/apple_countersues_motorola_over_multi_touch_iphone_patents.html
if you are aware of the specifics of the Apple-Motorola case, in which Posner is referring to, that would assist in this discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro
How is that relevant? Patents are not supposed to be issued for obvious methods.
Without getting into a debate that I'm not really equipped to get into, I want to at least point out two things.
a) What he is specifically pointing out is that the uniqueness of a solution is often simply in the uniqueness of the problem and the tools/resources available.
b) What is obvious to John Carmack might not be obvious to you. Why should intelligent people be held back from creating things because they can more quickly recognize/formulate solutions which exceed whatever threshold "obvious" happens to be at the moment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Activist judges. Gotta love them.
An activist judge is any judge who issues an opinion one doesn't agree with
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Since no one is patenting an idea, your comment is a red herring.
Patents do not cover ideas. They cover inventions - often defined as specific implementations of an idea.
For example, Apple's swipe-to-unlock patent does not cover an idea. The idea would be "let's find a way to unlock our phone". Apple chose and patented one specific way to do that (swipe along a defined path). You could choose any number of other ways to unlock a phone:
- Speaking into the phone
- Pushing a button
- Shaking the phone
- Turning the phone upside down
- Hitting the phone with a hammer
- Licking the phone
There are any number of ways to unlock a phone (the idea). Apple patented one particular process for achieving that goal. That's why Apple got a patent. If they had simply tried to patent 'unlocking a phone', it would presumably have been rejected.
You most certainly are confused about it. You keep saying that copyrights should be used to protect software instead of patents. That's like saying that airplanes should be used to explore the bottom of the ocean instead of submarines.
Copyrights do not cover inventions. So your idea makes no sense - and the fact that you keep repeating the same idea even after being correct is just further evidence that you're incapable of rationally discussing the topic.
How long did it take you to come up with that list of ideas? They are at least as novel as Slide to Unlock. If you were to pay some money to patent all of those, do you think that you would deserve a 20 year monopoly on all of those methods of unlocking a phone? That's 6 patents, that'd cost you about $20,000. Not a ton of money. Heck, you could probably patent "recognizing a predefined pattern from the accelerometer to unlock a phone.", and only need one patent for #3, 4 and 5. How would you unlock a phone now?
Copyrights (along with trademarks) are absolutely used to protect software. Apple has copyrights on their branding, iconography, logos, fonts, sounds, marketing slogans, etc. - ie. the stuff that makes the iPhone the iPhone. Likewise, it would be incredibly illegal for someone to write an iOS emulator and sell Siri on an Android device without Apple's approval. Trademarks prevent other people from saying "slide to unlock" on the device screen. Design patents provide even further protection. I think that this is more than sufficient.
Patenting "sliding to unlock" is like patenting "using a pill to cure a headache". Sure, there are countless ways to get drugs into your body, but do you think such a patent would be fair or reasonable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax
"It's not clear that we really need patents in most industries," Posner said.
I didn't read the entire text of the speech, but this line is troubling in the context of his just having thrown out a patent-related case. It's not a judge's job to decide what laws we "really need" or should have. It's his job to fairly apply the laws that we do have. This certainly raises the question as to whether he stepped over that line in this case. The fact that he "only uses his iPhone for mail" is somewhat troubling too. Doesn't sound like the best guy to understand the implications of software innovation. It's also troubling that he didn't get the Apple-Motorola case by the luck of the draw but went out of his way to take the case in the first place. He used his influence to take a high-profile software patent case; he dismisses said case; and then goes on the record saying that he doesn't believe we actually need software patents. Well, perhaps we don't need judges legislating from the bench either.
Your post is most refreshing. Thank you for attempting to illuminate in this climate of wild wild west thinking and culture of getting something for nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And what happens when that date of expiry rolls around? Disney forces Congress to extend it. Disney will always force Congress to extend copyright. Therefore copyright is permanent.
And don't complain about my use of 'always' there. Compared to some of the other atrocities committed by Disney that have gone completely unchecked and ignored, their ability to pay off people to extend copyright terms is small change. They'll get their extension.
Ahhh I see, you use hypothetical or imaginary realities to base your arguments on, rather than actual ones. That explains a lot of the "logical arguments" tossed around here. This place beats the Onion for trenchant satire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
If I were the first person to think up those ideas, if they were determined to be non-obvious, and I were willing to spend the money, why shouldn't I be able to get patents? Our system allows for patents that meet the specific requirements for novelty. If someone comes up with something novel and non-obvious, they SHOULD be able to get a patent. Why do you have a problem with that?
I never said that copyrights couldn't be used to protect software. I said that copyrights protect different things than patents - which is true.
As for making an iOS emulator, there's no law against that. There may be contractual agreements that prohibit it (which may or may not be enforceable), but simply making an OS emulator is perfectly legal.
No, it's not. You're not thinking about this clearly. To use your analogy:
"unlocking your phone" is equivalent to "taking a pill to cure a headache"
"Slide to unlock" is equivalent to "taking a very specific, patented pill to cure a headache".
The first is an idea. The second is a specific implementation. If you can't comprehend such a simple concept, you really out to sit back and learn.
No, an activist judge who does more than the law allows him to do. Under the US Constitution, a judge's job is to INTERPRET the law. A judge who says "I don't like the law" and then refuses to enforce it is an activist judge.
Which still doesn't prove the point. That is not an idea. It's a specific implementation of how you unlock. See above for information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
Again, still not never, ever. What will happen in the future is only conjecture. 'Cos you know, if history teaches us anything, its that things always stay the same over the course of a hundred years.