|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, June 01 2013 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
Nice. Perhaps IBM was hasty to settle.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Saturday, June 01 2013 @ 11:09 PM EDT |
Whyte ruled that Acacia's patent, which
relates to a process of
compressing digital data, is an
abstract idea. Abstract ideas are categorically
excluded
from patent-eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act,
along
with "laws of nature" and "physical phenomena."
Wonderful
news you bring us. A few more of these and it's
game over!
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 02:44 AM EDT |
In his view, even Morse code (invented in 1837) would run afoul
of Acacia's patented process.
If this is so, then it surely would
have been prior art and so prevented the patent in the first place, making it
another incorrectly issued patent.
Perhaps the USPTO would do a better job
if the examiners were all History graduates.
cm [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dio gratia on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
I couldn't help but think of i4i v. Microsoft when reading the
decision.
The ‘449 Patent claims a “computer system for the
manipulation of the architecture and content of a document . . . by producing a
first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped
content.” ‘449 Patent, col. 15:35–49; see also id. at col. 16:18–39 (claiming a
“method for producing a first map of metacodes and their addresses of use in
association with mapped content”); see also id. at col. 16:50–65 (claiming a
“method for producing from a document made up of metacodes and content, a map of
metacodes and their addresses of use in association with mapped content of the
document”). The computer system comprises a “means for compiling said metacodes
of the menu by locating, detecting and addressing the metacodes in the document
to constitute the map and storing the map in the metacode storage means.” Id. at
col. 15:35–49; see also id. at col. 16:18–39 (claiming method step of “compiling
a map of the metacodes in the distinct storage means, by locating, detecting and
addressing the metacodes”).
Wherein apparently Microsoft preferred
to pay hundreds of millions of dollars rather than make the point that this is
something a person could do as a mental process with
aide-mémoire, potentially upsetting the entire basis for software
patents.
If the idea that mental processes map readily onto execution of
algorithms on computers catches on Microsoft may find they made a bad investment
toward the future of innovation limiting intellectual property rights. They
didn't go after prior art either, in this case for example TROFF's manuscript
(ms) macros, the compiled map a table of contents with header macros supplying
the metacodes.
How many people reading a document couldn't generate a table
of contents using pencil and paper as a memory aide noting page numbers and
header precedence?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Sunday, June 02 2013 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
Thanks! Nice article. I put it in News Picks. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|