Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] USPTO to Start Killing Some Software Patents!!

Hadron wrote:
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
| Interferences has now supplied an answer to that question: A
general purpose | computer is not a particular machine, and thus
innovative software processes | are unpatentable if they are tied
only to a general purpose computer.
I'd have to see how this goes but this may actually be the middle
ground we're after. I have no problem with software as part of a
particular system i.e. an algorithmic control system as part of a
device such as a braking system for a car, but general purpose
software on general purpose computer machinery, say new UI elements or
data structures should not be patentable.

You are clueless. And how do YOU propose to distinguish between "general
purpose" and "specialised"? There is not white line. What if the new
controls were specific to the "algorithm" data input? What if that
algorithm COULD be used in ALL braking control systems to save lives and
improve safety in general?

Then it would be patentable as part of the braking system, which is not a general purpose computer. I know you probably keep confusing your billybox with an ABS Quack but trust me they *are* different. You use one to perform general computing tasks like trolling cola and the other may save your life one day when you hit the brake pedal in your car. See you hit the brake pedal in your car to *apply your brakes* only. Your billybox can be used for a number of tasks, hence the term "general purpose".

Fuck me Quack, this isn't difficult. You seem to want to use the patent office to drive markets... dumb dumb dumb and not actually possible. Years and years of economic research have proven again and again that trying to manipulate supply in any way is doomed to failure.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index