|
|
|
| Authored by: jesse on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
If the "specific resource constraints" is nothing but time, then
again, it shouldn't be patented.
There is nothing different between the C64 and the current solutions other than
processing speed.
And that was patented with the processor.
So again, the patent on mathematics should be void.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
>most software patents are a specific solution to a specific problem with
specific resource constraints - and that within those constraints they might be
inventive.
I wrote some software, and got a nice little cease and desist letter from a
patent troll, because they had heard that I was writing software. They were
utterly clueless about what it did, or how it did it, but they were convinced
that I had infringed upon their non-patent. A non-patent that claimed that all
software in the field of endeavor encompassed. A non-patent that was virtually
identical to something the USPTO had granted more than a decade earlier, and was
described in the literature of the nineteenth century.
My choices were:
* Pay the dangeld;
* Drop development of the program;
* Completely shut up about the program, neither confirming nor denying any
alleged status it might have;
I can't afford the ten million dollars it takes to demonstrate that what was
possibly state of the art in 1850, should not be patentable matter today.
This is software that uses basic programming constructs, to replicate in
software that which has been done by hand in 1850, and had been done by hand
since at least 1622 AD, which is when the first book in the field was pirated.
Or, if some pseudo-historians of the field claim, done by hand since 2,500 BP.
Then I look at the things at issue in the smartphone litigation, and the
descriptions are of things that, whilst possibly not specifically described in
1890, are obvious applications and derivatives of what was described in 1890.
The gap between what was envisioned, and what was technologically possible was
as big back then, as it is today. The technological issues are in constructing
hardware that is capable of providing real time performance.
In the patent descriptions I've read, once the legal junk has been removed, the
only thing that is left is that which is as novel as boiling lead. If the legal
junk is left in, then you have patents that are patent nonsense, and should
never have been granted because they are non-specific, describing all and
sundry, and yet nothing at all.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
