|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
Anyone claiming an "invention of getting the computer to calculate result X"
is in the same group as anyone who has tried to get a patent on "apply formula X
on a calculator".
That group has not earned thanks. They have attempted
(and in some cases succeeded) to take knowledge out of Society rather then
contribute knowledge to Society.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 04:52 PM EDT |
I was using Visicalc in1983 to do the arithmatic for reports I wrote.
I've forgotten what text editor I used, to write my reports. It wasn't
VisiCalc.
If anybody should get a royalty payment for the software, it should be Dan
Brinklin. Alternatively, Jonathan Sachs is the inventor, because he wrote
Lotus 123, based upon the ideas inherent within VisiCalc.
Had software been patentable then, the patent would have expired by 2002, or
the year that the USPTO granted the most recent incarnation of that non-
patent that claims to cover everything in my field of endevour "using a
computer".
As far as going back to a typewriter goes, a report that takes an hour to do on
a computer, takes 40 hours to do, using pen and paper, writing and editing
drafts, etc. The "pretty pictures" that accompany the reports take
30 seconds
to generate on a computer, or one hour, if done by hand.
It is a non-patent granted on a non-invention, because software that does
what it covers was available two decades earlier. And just to rub it in,
everything in the patent that is not "using a computer" was described
in the
published literature from before 1923, with most of it being from before 1909.
What is the "invention" here? Using a computer? If so, then the
non-patent
holder is not the inventor, because it was obvious in 1972, which is when I
first
saw a computer being used in my field, that computers could be used in my
field of endevour.
I'll not skip the non-patent granted in 2007, that is based on a presentation I
did 1981. A presentation that the person who was granted the non-patent was
very much aware of. To the point he even recieved updates on how to do the
stuff "on a computer" and "using a network".
Maybe you can explain why _The Document Foundation_ should be paying
royalties to any non-patent holder that conned the USPTO to grant non-
patents on things that are routinely done using an office suite?
Or why an individual should pay royalties to any non-patent holder that
conned the USPTO to grant non-patents on things that are routinely one using
an office suite?
If the non-owner of the 2012 patent even breathes a word about being
owed royalties, he'll get a lecture, in Latin, on piracy in the publishing world
during the fifteenth through seventeenth centuries, with an emhasis on the
tome that his patent is a translation of.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
