|
Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
https://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130612-01.en.html
"German Parliament tells government to strictly limit patents on
software"
The link is to the English translation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kds on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
PJ: If only they'd quit suing Android, I'm drooling. You know what
Apple is like? It's like staying at a luxury hotel, instead of a student hostel,
where the staff spends thoughtful time figuring what touches would make your
life easier and you the most happy you came to their lovely
hotel.
It is also like the hotel staff telling you that you are
not allowed to go into the pool because it is too dangerous and you might drown.
Or trying to order a delicious cheeseburger but being told that it isn't
healthy for you so you can only order a small salad.
I understand why they
lock the system down and tightly control it. Besides making them lots of money
(30% Apple tax on apps) and pushing their morality onto the users (no apps with
nudity), it can help to prevent more viruses/trojans/etc from infecting the
devices than just those that have already found a way to sneak in. What would
make many people happy and still allow those users that like the restrictions to
keep things the way they are would be to add a configuration setting that either
locks the system down as it currently is or allows the user to open it up and
install non-Apple approved apps. A rating system similar to the movies
(G/PG/R/unrated) would be a good way to lock down a device for kids and adults
alike while not censoring the content for those that want it.
Droid Life has an article about iOS 7 vs. Android.
Being a "pro-droid" publication, I'm guessing they are touching on those
enhancements that best show their point of view, but it does show Apple doing
some quick catching-up work. If anyone can find a truly unbiased review of iOS
7 showing all the actual new features not already in Android as well as the
catch-up features and how they might compare I would really appreciate a linked
reply.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
Article quote:
would remove the most
“viable” competitor
ROFL
Is that because MS/Apple maps
facilities are so poor?
I have a different suggestion:
Consumer
Watchdog: suggest to your "affiliates" that perhaps they should focus on
spending money on R&D to improve their products rather then on litigation
tactics.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 06:22 PM EDT |
Sorry, it's a slashdot link.
Quote from the
link:
The only exception where patents should be allowed are
computer programs which replace a mechanical or electromagnetic
component.
No, sorry, that exception should not
exist.
Perhaps someone can show how software can replace an
electromagnetic component (how can software, an abstract language, ever produce
an appropriate magnetic field?). This exception appears to conflict with the
basic laws of physics.
As for the "replace a mechanical component"
exception:
A calculator is a mechanical component
Of course the
physical difference between your basic calculator and your basic computer is
that computer "has more muscle". The computer is the replacement - not
the software.
As a result, this exception should not exist either because
it conflates the invention of the computer with some "impression that software
is more then abstract".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 10:22 PM EDT |
Mr. Quinn, obviously a fan of software patents, is apoplectic over that ruling.
Pointing out how such clearly defined particular physical elements as "a
data source" and "a processor" should be considered sufficient to
render something patentable. *eye-roll*
That said, at least he confesses that the ruling is consistent with the current
state of the law as handed down by the Supreme Court in Mayo v Prometheus.
(conventional steps or means cannot render an abstract idea patent eligible
under 101)...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Mr. Quinn is quite amusing - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:22 AM EDT
- Gene Quinn is hilarious - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:25 AM EDT
- ROFL - another good one - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:29 AM EDT
- Love the explanation on "computer is nothing without software" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:36 AM EDT
- Additionally, it appears Mr. Quinn has a selective reading habit - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:40 AM EDT
- Nice conflation - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:47 AM EDT
- ROFL - "software is transformative" - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 12:56 AM EDT
- Ooohhh... are pigs flying? I agree with Mr. Quinn! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 01:05 AM EDT
- Did the PTAB Just Kill Software Patents? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 02:15 AM EDT
- Amusing? Hilarious? - Authored by: albert on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
Take my word for it - if it upset Gene Quinn, this is
really good
news.
Gene Quinn says the Patent Trial and Appeal Board got
this one
wrong. Imagine that - he considers himself a cut
above this distinguished
panel. Then he goes on a tirade,
setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
He complains
that this software patent depends on - get this - a "Data
Source"
- as his opening argument. It absolutely can't be
abstract, because it needs a
tangible "Data Source". Never
mind that a data source could be notes on a sheet
of paper,
or as it has been for millenniums - just somebody's
memories. Then
he goes on to say it also needs a Processor
and even RAM, but humans were
computers long before we had
machines bearing that moniker. As quoted below he
asks us to
imagine how useful a computer would be with all software
removed.
This is where he is setting up the straw man to
attack, because his argument
has nothing to do with whether
the patent is abstract or
not.
In a nutshell, the PTAB ignored all the
recited
tangible computer elements embodied in the claims.
Once the specifically
articulated and necessary structure is
ignored the PTAB then concluded that the
claims protect only
an abstract idea.
In order for there to be
infringement each and every
limitation would have to be found in the accused
infringing
method. So under what authority does the PTAB ignore
specifically
recited structure? The authority that the PTAB
seems to be relying on to ignore
claim terms is unclear and
not explained in the opinion in any satisfactory
way. It
does, however, seem that the fact that the invention can be
implemented in any type of computer system or processing
environment lead the
PTAB to treat the method as one that
could be performed on a “general purpose
computer,” rather
than a specific purpose computer. Thus, the PTAB picks up on
the arbitrary and erroneous distinctions between general
purpose computer and
specific purpose computer without as
much as a thought and wholly without
factual explanation.
Sadly, the PTAB makes the same mistake that so
many
courts and so-called software experts make. It is undeniable
that the
presence of a piece of software turns a dumb
terminal that is incapable of
accomplishing anything into a
machine that is specifically useable for the
intended
purpose. In order to grasp this unassailable reality the
PTAB should
instruct the tech people at the USPTO to remove
all software (including
operating systems) from their
laptops and desktops. They should then attempt to
accomplish
any task. They will then conclusively prove to themselves
that
without software the computer ceases to be able to
provide any functionality;
even functionality of a general
purpose computer, whatever that may be. Then
they can
instruct the tech people to load software onto the oversize
paperweight occupying space on their desk, which had
formerly been a computer
with myriad capabilities all thanks
to the presence of software. When software
is reloaded the
PTAB will notice that the machine can be once again used to
accomplish whatever specific task the loaded software
enables. Presto-chango!
The paperweight is now a useful
machine! No black magic, just basic
understanding of
software and the inherent limitations of hardware, which as
it turns out is capable of absolutely nothing in and of
itself.
So the key to his argument is that "It is
undeniable that
the presence of a piece of software turns a dumb terminal
that
is incapable of accomplishing anything into a machine
that is specifically
useable for the intended purpose."
However, the components of the
Machine were already
invented. It was already capable of running any software
program written for it. Nothing has changed. So where is the
concrete
invention? The software is just like a recipe for
baking a cake. Does Gene
Quinn think that cake recipes
should be patentable? Well - I don't. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, June 12 2013 @ 11:12 PM EDT |
Newspick link
Thank you FISC!
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
link
I've
read the pdf and am a bit worried. I've had my sweetcorn rendered inedible from
a field of feedcorn over 200yards away from my crop. I'd guess 1 in 10 kernels
were fertilised by the neighbouring crop. I'd hardly count that as a trace! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|