__/ [ Rafael ] on Saturday 09 June 2007 02:28 \__
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
>> Et tu, Laura?
>>
>>
http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Microsoft-Signs-Linux-Pact-with-LG/story.xhtml?story_id=0200016CSC0G
>> http://tinyurl.com/yrjez3
>
> Article further states:
>
>> Everyone Infringing Everybody
>>
>> Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio said that, "if you use a fine
>> tooth comb and look at the many lines of code that go into
>> most software, you'll find that everyone is infringing on
>> everybody." But the chances of even Microsoft taking anyone to
>> court over patent infringement, she said, "are slim."
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> She noted it is easiest for Microsoft to say that it
>> identifies patent violations, then say, "Let's all be
>> reasonable and hammer out a cross-licensing deal." This tactic
>> is not hurting Linux, she said, which remains in a "very good
>> position vis-à-vis Microsoft." In fact, she said, deals of
>> this kind legitimize Linux and might even help increase its
>> momentum.
>
> There are a couple problems with her approach. For one, it is
> subtle FUD. In essence it implies that Linux is not legitimate,
> which is untrue.
>
> However, what she states in the upper paragraph is profound. It
> points out something fundamentally inadequate with the current US
> software patenting system. People are obtaining patents on items
> that others, such as the UK government and the EU have determined
> to be inappropriate for patent grants. Here is the Amended
> Software Patent Directive from the EU:
>
> http://eupat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/index.en.html
>
> Europarl 2003-09-24: Amended Software Patent Directive
>
> [quote]
> 4.3a. In determining whether a given computer-implemented
> invention makes a technical contribution, the following test
> shall be used: whether it constitutes a new teaching on
> cause-effect relations in the use of controllable forces of
> natures and has an industrial application in the strict sense of
> the expression, in terms of both method and result.
>
> 6. Article 4a: Exclusions from patentability
>
> 4a.1. A computer-implemented invention shall not be regarded as
> making a technical contribution merely because it involves the
> use of a computer, network or other programmable apparatus.
> Accordingly, inventions involving computer programs which
> implement business, mathematical or other methods and do not
> produce any technical effects beyond the normal physical
> interactions between a program and the computer, network or other
> programmable apparatus in which it is run shall not be patentable.
>
> 4a.2. Member States shall ensure that computer-implemented
> solutions to technical problems are not considered to be
> patentable inventions merely because they improve efficiency in
> the use of resources within the data processing system.
> [/quote]
>
> The Directive clearly indicates that the software must be
> associated with a real world kinetic hardware event, not
> simulation or computation.
Microsoft nods in approval.
<quote>
Now, I have already stated that I don't believe that software, in and of
itself, is patentable. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently
remarked, "There needs to be a device", and Microsoft's own attorneys
agreed.
MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The '580 patent is a program, as I understand
it, that's married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order
to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the
abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That's correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can't be
patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable
device.
</quote>
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/05/15/software-is-not-a-component/
Where is the device?
--
~~ Enjoying summertime
Roy S. Schestowitz | Partition if an operating $ysteM must be set aside
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
run-level 5 Apr 28 15:45 last=S
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
