|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 11:34 PM EDT |
When you get done with the list,
point out which type you were referring to.
Unless there is hardware involved, as part
of a deliverable physical product, then
it should not be patentable.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 12:45 AM EDT |
Since the application of the software to the computer (no matter how complex
the software) is nothing more then the application of "entering 1+2=" on a
calculator and receiving a response of "3":
No! Software should not be
protected by the patent!
You are doing nothing more then using the patented
invention (the computer) for exactly what it was designed to be used for.
You're not expanding it (for example: by creating a new device like a robot) -
just using it for exactly what it was built for.
The specific concept as
well as application is identical to using a calculator.
The specific
concept is identical to:
Using a pencil to write on paper
and then
expecting to be able to patent:
Using a pencil to write on
cardboard
and then expecting to be able to patent:
Using a pencil to
write on a piece of napkin
The pencil was the invention. The use of it to
author things on materials that will hold the image is a natural extension and
should fail for obviousness if nothing else.
So no... even if you could
build the theoretical virus-proof OS, in my humble opinion, you shouldn't be
granted a patent.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 09:36 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court was very clear that E=MC2 is not patentable
subject matter. They explicitly noted that during the last heavy review on the
subject.
Asking to patent computer software is equivalent
to:
Entering the algorithm to prove E=MC2 into a
computer
Obviously, E=MC2 is completely not patentable. So the
only aspect of that which could be patentable is:
Having the computer do the
calculation instead of Einstein doing the calculation on a blackboard!
I
think the Supremes covered that in the combination of the last two
cases:
There must be more!
Sorry, logic which a human can do
with pen and paper applied to a computer is - in my non-legal understanding of
the intent the Supreme's are trying to impress - Not Patentable.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: hardmath on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
I mean, if it worked, just apply the software lock to itself,
and you've got all the protection you should need.
Suspending disbelief and so on...
--hm
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT |
Right now, I don't care what OS you run, the assurances that your computer isn't
part of a botnet and sending out all your information on it are very, very
thin......stuxnet, flame, dnschanger, etc, etc.
That is, the integrity of your OS is *very* questionable. Even if you run Linux
or Android. There's simply too much of it to inspect, and it's too
complicated.
Suppose I claim a method of operating a computer that gives significantly
improved assurance of the integrity of your computer's software, in spite of the
difficulty of inspecting it all, and suppose I disclose how to do it.
Should that be patentable material?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 01:00 PM EDT |
1. Its probably not possible. I doubt that there is any kind of lock that can
be fully implemented in software. Until there is some kind of hardware that can
'memorize' its own identity and keys without having to rely on storing it
somewhere, any machine will remain vulnerable to someone with access to the
storage medium and the startup sequence.
2. Even if it were possible, nothing in that software will be 'new' or
'original' to that software. I.e. the software can only do what you tell it to
do, which means it must be doable *outside* of the software first, or you
couldn't write the software at all. Therefore, the software isn't (and can
never be) an invention, its merely one implementation of an existing concept.
This is why NO software should be patentable.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|