|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
Suggest a change in the following section : ( the additional doc )
2. Litigation risks are a burden to community-based software development.
------
This problem may be more acute for these groups than it is for proprietary
vendors because these development model don't permit to pinpoint any specific
date where the code is released.
The changes :
This problem may be more acute for these groups than it is for proprietary
vendors because these development (models) don't permit to pinpoint any specific
date (when) the code is released.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 10:58 AM EDT |
> The question fails to address why mathematics isn't
> patentable. In principle (the specific legal situation
> aside) everything is patentable that someone wants to be
> patentable and could describe with a abstract "technical"
> description, the "invention".
This may be the EU point of view. In the US this is not true. An invention must
belong in one of the four statutory categories of subject matter which are
enumerated in section 101 of the statute. The four categories are processes,
machines. composition of matter and articles of manufacture. If you describe
technically something which is not in the four categories it is not patentable.
An notable example is electronic signals. There is case law that they are not
patentable because they belong to none of the four categories.
Also there are recognized exceptions that are exclusions to what is patentable
subject matter. They are abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomenons.
Mathematical is unpatentable because it is an abstract idea.
> If software/math is not patentable it is because a
> decision is made that the scope of inventions does not
> extend to software/math.
Exactly. In the US the notion that mathematics is unpatentable because it is
abstract ideas is established case law. In countries using common law, like the
US, case law is binding on the courts. We don't need to justify case law. We can
take it as a foundation to build an argument.
The argument in this article is *not* "software is math, ergo it is not
patentable." The argument is about the distinction between the expression
in a language and the thing described in the language.
Do you read the complete article before protesting? If I recall our previous
discussions, you have a tendency not to read the argument as we present it. I
remember that you tend to object on grounds which are not relevant to what we
actually argue.
Notice how the notion that mathematics is abstract ideas and that there is case
law about it is missing from your view. Notice also how we use the notion that
mathematics is a language and why the meaning of symbols is not a physical
property of a machine. You say some points are are missing when they are not
actually missing. You are the one who fails to see how we address them.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 11:58 AM EDT |
"but not taken seriously in the legal community."
Which is exactly the problem. When discussing a maths problem, who would you
trust? A mathematician or a lawyer?
When discussing a scientific problem, who would you trust? A scientist or a
lawyer?
The PROBLEM is that the *lawyer* is saying "you can't trust THEM". And
he has the force of law to back him up.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
