|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 02:16 AM EDT |
If someone took the patents and showed by
proofs that they are algorithms, mathematics,
I'm sure they'd be more useful.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 03:03 AM EDT |
| they won't do this because it would invalidate their own patents... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 09 2012 @ 12:12 PM EDT |
If Oracle is going to argue that an API can be copyrighted (which seems like
quite a reach, given the current state of the law in the US), then Google could
(should?) argue that software is not patentable because it's mathematics (which
is also a reach, given the current state of the law in the US).
Google isn't going to do this, however, because Google is neither as slimy nor
as desperate to find something to hang a case on as Oracle is.
My personal view: Some software is worthy of patents - Diffie-Hellman and LZW,
say. Those were significant improvements that were not obvious to one
ordinarily skilled in the art. The problem is that the PTO has no idea what's
obvious to a professional software engineer with 20 or 30 years of experience
and a copy of Knuth.
MSS2[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
