|
|
|
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 02:39 PM EST |
"You can't get there from here." would become true.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UncleVom on Monday, January 07 2013 @ 02:48 PM EST |
I'm hoping that as things get narrowed down to algorithms and claims all of a
sudden the light will dawn on even the most dim.
This is probably better than hitting them in the foreheads with a (patent
pending) inked, clue bat with the words "Hello World" in relief.
Should the "Hello World" text be mirrored or not?
I guess it depends on the desired audience.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 08 2013 @ 09:01 AM EST |
The USPTO claims that they aren't allowing patents on software. They are
allowing patents on "software-related inventions", which means that
the invention is the computer (or storage medium, or transmission medium, etc.)
that contains the software (i.e., the hardware).
Never mind that the claims on such patents don't read on any kind of
improvements to computer hardware, or storage media, or transmission media,
etc..
There are two huge hurdles to overcome, as I see it (as a software developer,
not a lawyer).
The first hurdle is the mindset that holds that a computer (et al) lacks certain
functionality until it comes into contact with the claimed software, and is
thereby imbued with extra patentability. Unfortunately, this mindset is
well-entrenched in the USPTO and the courts.
The second hurdle is the MASSIVE amount of money to be made by encouraging the
mindset described in the first hurdle. These people are NOT going to understand
the meaning of "general purpose computer" while they grow fat feeding
at the "computer + software = new machine" trough.
I am delighted to see a (very slowly) increasing number of members of the
judiciary that are understanding the technology, and understanding the
deleterious effects of a Patent Office run amok.
There is yet hope.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
