Printable View
Unless someone is living under a rock, he or she has heard of the Bilski case before the supreme court. The case is important because it has implications for software and business method patents in the United States. So the case is very important for any programmer.
I personally hope the supreme court puts the smack down on software patents, but I'm not sure it will happen. But one can hope!
How do you think it will turn out, and have you been following the case?
Evidently I have been living under a rock...
If you're a programmer who plans to distribute software, you should pay very close attention to the case. Why? Software programmers are currently running very high legal risks when they distribute software.Quote:
Originally Posted by homer13j
A lot of people don't even realize that they are a software company in a legal sense. For example, people who run blogs are acting as a software company. If the blogger uses a patented piece of html code, he or she could be sued for patent infringement. Any and all web sites owners are acting as software companies. Visual basic programmers who release software to the public are acting as a software company too =P
I am going to patent if, then, else, elseif.
What's a software?
I think it's when you ask for directions very quietly.Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade
I'm going to patent the Select Case statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
I'm going to patent End If
Just don't try to patent IsNot, MS holds that one already
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20040230959
:thumb: i laughed haha
Apparently I've been under a rock too. Patent law has always seemed like so much BS to me when you get people patenting extremely generic things like "digital transmission of text" and then go sue anyone who sends email, has a web page, uses Twitter, etc.
I have also been living under a rock it seems...
As for MS holding the patent for IsNot, I thought they got that refused
EDIT: Oh no I think a lot of other companies just complained about it: http://www.geek.com/articles/news/mi...tent-20050223/
maybe it did. I never heard anything about it more than they filed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chris128
The question:
"Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a
particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different
state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under
35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory
grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents
for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."
Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility,
which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business
methods, contradicts the clear Congressional intent that patents protect "method[s]
of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. § 273"
OralArgumentTranscript
My guess is that they will uphold the ruling of the Federal Circuit.
That was completely unintelligible.
Justice Thomas said that he found oral argument not to be useful, that the real work was in the brief's filed. Bet they are fun to read.
i patented the internet.
and port 80
So is it the operator or is it not?Quote:
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the operator is IsNot.
You can't do that, Al Gore invented it.Quote:
i patented the internet.
I'm not so sure. In fact, the case may very well go the other way. Software programmers in general are mostly uninformed on patent law, and the general public is down right ignorant of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dbasnett
Anyway, I'm obviously wishing for a more conservative standing on patents, but I'm very doubtful.
Al Gore did invent the internet from a policy perspective. The internet use to be a military program, and it was called APARANET.Quote:
Originally Posted by pcuser
al gore also invented oxygen.
Al Gore was spun on the internet comment. Unfortunately, a good spin is equivalent to truth for most people.Quote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
ok I'll take Class, Sub, Function and DimQuote:
Originally Posted by dclamp
Mr. Gore said "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". The HPCCA of 1991, in my opinion, only sped up the inevitable. Gore was putting a little spin on his involvement.
Patents have no use, value, or necessity in this century. I say burn the patent offices. They serve no other purpose in this day and age except to feed scamming patent trolls and distribute money from good companies into the pockets of sleazy patent lawyers.
At best, patents should be restricted only to hard, physical objects and devices. No more "idea" patents. Patents are medieval thinking in the Information Age.
You mean ARPANET?Quote:
APARANET
Aparapararanet.
I'm going to patent All Ur Base
Yes, APARANET was the information system used to trap ghosts, poltergeists, poultrygeists, zeitgeists and other such things.
The "I created the internet" quote was actually coined by a conservative commentator in NH. What Gore actually said was correct, even Newt stated that. Would it have happened anyways? Perhaps it would have been like operating systems and mobile phones, where the entire world came together behind a single protocol...oh wait, maybe those were bad examples.
Then I will patent All Ur Acid, including Deoxyribonucleic Acid (or as much of that as is left).Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I'm also among those living under a rock. Is it ok if I patent rocks?
Patent Rocks in the...
Hot Sun
I fought the law and the...
Law Won
I've only recently heard of a patent that involves software during a yearly team christmas lunch.
It's basically to do with a company holding a patent for "Backchat" of an IRC based Messaging platform used in big banks. That is, being able to search historical message from the Messaging system. This company and their software is now bought by Microsoft and so Microsoft now owns this patent.
I find this baffling indeed that a generic capability has been patented and so others that may have a better implementation or a different more efficient approach might get sued.
A 1994 letter from Knuth to PTO.
http://www.pluto.it/files/meeting199...letter_en.html
Here is two more important things to watch:
1. The ACTA trade agreement.
http://www.eff.org/issues/acta
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/acta/
This trade agreement comes up in the senate in 2010. I wouldn't be surprised if it is not held behind closed doors because up to this point, it has been very secretive.
2. Net Neutrality
The FCC is suppose to issues some rules on this subject. I think it will be interesting to see how this develops because it will offer insight into to the future of the internet.
Are we going to have a more controlled internet or are we going to have a open internet?
I think its very likely we will see a more controlled internet in the future. The Obama administration has been backing away from net neutrality, and a sizable number of democrats opposed the concept. The telecommunications industry is not content with being dumb pipes, and it is very powerful. At some point, people will have to pay extra to visit sites like vbforums.
If you are working on the darker side of the law then patents are the dust you blow away before opening the box of treasure. Its a device that allows lawyers to make money (not its original intention). For that reason I doubt they'll be going anywhere soon?
What you get after drinking a lot of alcohol :)Quote:
Originally Posted by crptcblade