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

[News] Wolfram|Alpha Keeps Getting Bad Publicity for Abusing Intellectual Monopolies

  • Subject: [News] Wolfram|Alpha Keeps Getting Bad Publicity for Abusing Intellectual Monopolies
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 20:49:17 +0000
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • User-agent: KNode/0.10.9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Wolfram Alpha Does Not Understand Copyright

,----[ Quote ]
| Copyright, as Wolfram seems not to understand, is a bargain between creators 
| and their public. As an *incentive* to create, the former are given a 
| time-limited monopoly by governments. Note that it is *not* a reward for 
| having created: it is an incentive to create again.   
`----

http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/08/wolfram-alpha-does-not-understand.html


Recent:

Can You Copyright Algorithmic Output?

http://techdirt.com/articles/20090730/1747055719.shtml


How Wolfram Alpha could change software

,----[ Quote ]
| The upstart "computational knowledge engine" claims its results are original
| works, raising important questions about software and intellectual property
`----

http://infoworld.com/d/developer-world/how-wolfram-alpha-could-change-software-248


Judge Invalidates Software Patent, Citing Bilski

,----[ Quote ]
| "US District Court Judge Andrew Gilford (Central District of California)
| granted a summary judgment motion in DealerTrack v. Huber et al., finding
| DealerTrack's patent (US 7,181,427) â for an automated credit application
| processing system â invalid due to the recent In re Bilski court decision
| that requires a patent to either involve 'transformation' or 'a specific
| machine.' According to Judge Gilford's ruling, DealerTrack 'appears to
| concede that the claims of the '427 Patent do not meet the "transformation"
| prong of the Bilski test.' He then applied the 'specific machine' test and
| noted that, post-Bilski the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has
| ruled several times that 'claims reciting the use of general purpose
| processors or computers do not satisfy the [Bilski] test.' Judge Gilford
| analyzes the claims of the '427 patent, notes that they state that
| the 'machine' involved could be a 'dumb terminal' and a 'personal computer,'
| and then concludes: 'None of the claims of the '427 Patent require the use of
| a "particular machine," and the patent is thus invalid under Bilski.'
| DealerTrack apparently plans to appeal the ruling. Interesting times ahead."
`----

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/10/1218231/Judge-Invalidates-Software-Patent-Citing-Bilski?from=rss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkp7Qc0ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo46UQCgtJy23t8uvK4O3PhTcPBXqJep
GR0An0PVSk8B0pOoR+2pJVmvu+xX1u3f
=NNLA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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