|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 12:29 PM EST |
between not being able to go fast enough, and being able to go fast enough but
choosing not to.
In any case, my whole argument was not about patentability, per se. It was
about the idea that a computer cannot do anything that you cannot do in your
head. Once you add in real-life constraints such as the need to meet a
schedule, this is as demonstrably as false as the idea the you cannot accomplish
any more with a steam engine than you can with your bare hands.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:45 PM EST |
Look again at the Cotton Gin I described. Eli Whitney's
patent is very specific - someone else could develop a
cotton gin that worked differently, and thus did NOT violate
the patent. The HOW was patented, not the result.
However, software patents normally patent the RESULT. So,
for the "bounce," it doesn't matter HOW I do it, I still
violate the patent. And, because the HOW is not described,
someone "skilled in the art" cannot, just by reading the
patent, duplicate the HOW (technique) used to implement the
patent.
These broad, vague patents should be banned outright.
Oh, and if they did make it specific, they'd have to include
the source code - which is ALREADY protected by copyright.
Why does software get both copyright AND patent protection?
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
