|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST |
By your theory, general-purpose personal computers would
never drive specialized word processors out of the
marketplace.
And yet they did.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rcsteiner on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 02:02 PM EST |
What really frustrates me is this: most so-called "software patents"
don't actually cover a software implementation. They cover the basic idea and
ALL implementations, and sometimes even close approximations, of that idea.
Hardware patents generally cover ONE implementation of an idea.
While I fully grok the whole "software is math" thing, it really
doesn't matter if the software patents the USPTO is granting don't even meet the
same requirements for being patented that other patents do.
As I've said before: if hardware patents followed the same logic, we would have
a "method for transporting a human via four wheels", and the patent
holder could go after automobile manufacturers as well as little red wagons and
roller skates. They all fall within that broad scope.
---
-Rich Steiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, November 28 2012 @ 02:12 PM EST |
That separated hardware from software?
I think it was legal anti-trust stuff that separated it - IBM was forced to stop
bundling.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|