|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 09 2013 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
The point I disagree on:
instead of being used in scams, they are
being used in extortion
I'm not sure what your definition of scam
is... but extortion - in my definition - is a scam.
scam: A dishonest
scheme; a fraud.
So while all extortion is a scam...not all scams are
extortion.
The suggestion is on your comment for
Congress:
have congress officially class software as a matter of
copyright and not a matter for patent
The further suggestion to
that is:
and keep copyright on creative works that are
non-functional
In other words: don't start allowing the patenting of facts
or function.
Appeal to Congress:
Please understand that the
application of software to a computer is 100% identical to the application of
math to a calculator!
Software is just another language for math. An
example of such a language that you may be familiar with is:
Johnny has 3
apples, Billy gives Johnny 4 more apples. How many apples does Johnny
have?
Just because it looks kinda-sorta like normal language doesn't mean
it's not math.
It simply does not make any sense to allow a
patent/copyright on the process:
enter 3+4= on a calculator and review the
result
The Supremes appear to be doing a marvelous job with not allowing
that. Please step up and explicitly make it clear such is not patent/copyright
protectable.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Monday, June 10 2013 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BitOBear on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 09:42 PM EDT |
Claim 1: A system where a plurality of elements are examined, each is compared
with another, when elements are found to be out of order they shall be swapped,
one with the other, to place them in correct order, proceeding thusly until no
two elements can be found to be out of order.
Claim 2: A system as in claim 1, where groups of elements known to be in order
are treated as single elements within the plurality.
Claim 3: A system as in claim 1, where a plurality objects are then added into
an existing domain of sorted objects such that the combined result contains no
two elements that can be found out of order.
Each claim is a lot of words, more words in fact than any underlying
"sort" function would take to implement.
Each claim also each claim, as written, covers several completely different sort
functions and all three claims cover virtually any sort ever written.
A clever writer, taking a few more minutes than I have taken here, could likely
describe every known and possible sort in about this many claims.
This then becomes a patent of the _topic_ of sorting, and not any particular
_implementation(s)_.
I think the courts need to disambiguate between
function-meaning-single-implementation versus function-meaning-whole-topic.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
