Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Good News! Software Patents are in Jeopardy

biject · Guest

I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott
--
My Crypto code
http://bijective.dogma.net/crypto/scott19u.zip
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/Kong/scott19u.zip old version
My Compression code http://bijective.dogma.net/
**TO EMAIL ME drop the roman "five" **
Disclaimer:I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be drugged.
As a famous person once said "any cryptograhic
system is only as strong as its weakest link"

WTShaw · Guest

On Jul 24, 8:55 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
[quote] I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott
[/quote]
The thinking here is a multiedged sword. Consider trade secrets which
would only be so when they are held secret. If something is available
for inspection and a software secret can be discovered, there would be
no trade secret. That is a hacker>s dream. Hardware might be
simulated in software and for whatever reason, such software could not
be protected. If crypto could be broken and the method was generally
known, even reduced to some software package, the "hack" could not be
prevented.

On the other hand,the argument that all computers are and act alike is
bogus. These days, computers are individually identified and with
consumer choice become uniquely different or could be made so. If
systems are updated on like, computers may be selectively be made
different and the details by default be selectively out of reach of
the owner.

George Johnson · Guest

"WTShaw" <lurens1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b33f338-5eaa-4a4d-b000-de126b0f2577@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
[quote]On Jul 24, 8:55 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott

The thinking here is a multiedged sword. Consider trade secrets which
would only be so when they are held secret. If something is available
for inspection and a software secret can be discovered, there would be
no trade secret. That is a hacker>s dream. Hardware might be
simulated in software and for whatever reason, such software could not
be protected. If crypto could be broken and the method was generally
known, even reduced to some software package, the "hack" could not be
prevented.

On the other hand,the argument that all computers are and act alike is
bogus. These days, computers are individually identified and with
consumer choice become uniquely different or could be made so. If
systems are updated on like, computers may be selectively be made
different and the details by default be selectively out of reach of
the owner.
[/quote]

There is nothing top prevent the Patent Office posting the unencrypted
descriptive generic details for the public with the specific coding talent
files encrypted for protection of the complex aspects to prevent easy
rip-off spin-offs.

Boon · Guest

biject wrote:

[quote]In the computer world there are many patents that don>t make cents.
[/quote]
Why apply for a patent if one can>t even make one cent from it?

Peter Fairbrother · Guest

Boon wrote:
[quote]biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don>t make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can>t even make one cent from it?
[/quote]
Wishful thinking
Pride
Defense (so no-one else can stop you)
Attack (in order to stop someone else)
Charity (you give it away)

... and so on.

Thomas Richter · Guest

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
[quote]Boon wrote:
biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don>t make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can>t even make one cent from it?

Wishful thinking
Pride
Defense (so no-one else can stop you)
Attack (in order to stop someone else)
Charity (you give it away)
[/quote]
Patents are nowadays not made to make money. They are used to defend
your company. It>s not usual that company A approaches company B to
collect some money (patent submarining), now if B has patents, B will
check whether there>s anything that can be applied to A>s technology, so
B has to negotiate. It>s a silly game, invented by patent lawyers, but
once this game has started, there>s no longer a way
to get around it. You *have* to have patents for this situation, so you
get them.

So long,
Thomas

Unruh · Guest

"George Johnson" <matrix29@charter.net> writes:

[quote]"WTShaw" <lurens1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b33f338-5eaa-4a4d-b000-de126b0f2577@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
On Jul 24, 8:55 pm, biject <biject.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott

The thinking here is a multiedged sword. Consider trade secrets which
would only be so when they are held secret. If something is available
for inspection and a software secret can be discovered, there would be
no trade secret. That is a hacker>s dream. Hardware might be
simulated in software and for whatever reason, such software could not
be protected. If crypto could be broken and the method was generally
known, even reduced to some software package, the "hack" could not be
prevented.

On the other hand,the argument that all computers are and act alike is
bogus. These days, computers are individually identified and with
consumer choice become uniquely different or could be made so. If
systems are updated on like, computers may be selectively be made
different and the details by default be selectively out of reach of
the owner.
[/quote]

[quote]There is nothing top prevent the Patent Office posting the unencrypted
descriptive generic details for the public with the specific coding talent
files encrypted for protection of the complex aspects to prevent easy
rip-off spin-offs.
[/quote]

You do not understand what the purpose of patents is. It is NOT simply a
monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it. The law in
exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
It is that tradeoff which is crucial --
otherwise patents simply become like the ancient kings granting of
monopoly rights to their friends to make them rich. The discovery of the
past 100 years ago is that society benefits far more from competition.

Corrupt governments grant monopolies.

Whether or not the tradeoffs in patents is really worth it could be
debated. In copyright the balance has definitely shifted to the corrupt end
of the scale-- I give you money for political donations and you allow me to
gouge your fellow citizens-- especially in software. But that is another
arguement.

Peter Fairbrother · Guest

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
[quote]Boon wrote:
biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don>t make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can>t even make one cent from it?
[/quote]
Wishful thinking (it might be worth something someday)
Pride (I have a patent!)
Fraud (our crypto snakeo algorithm is patented)
Defense (so no-one else can stop you doing it)
Defense (so no-one else can sue you doing it)
Attack (in order to stop someone else doing it)
Attack (in order to be able to sue someone else for doing it)
Charity (you give it away)
charity (this is obvious!, I won>t let MS/Google/Chaum control it>s use
with a later patent)

[quote]
... and so on.
[/quote]
more?

WTShaw · Guest

[quote]You do not understand what the purpose of patents is. It is NOT simply a
monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it.
[/quote]
In looking at many patents, we see that which many here reject,
"Security by Obscurity." Very far from complete descriptions, many are
sketchy, even obviously misleading.

[quote]The law in
exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
It is that tradeoff which is crucial --
[/quote]
If that is the real purpose, I agree.

[quote]Corrupt governments grant monopolies.
[/quote]
It>s difficult to find one who has virginal feet, surely not ours of
late.
[quote]
Whether or not the tradeoffs in patents is really worth it could be
debated. In copyright the balance has definitely shifted to the corrupt end
of the scale-- I give you money for political donations and you allow me to
gouge your fellow citizens-- especially in software. But that is another
arguement.
[/quote]
The fuzzy separation here with patents and copyrights would lead us
far afield as openness to abuse any worthy goals is generally
available for those that look for legal realities, often
contradictory, not to be confused with academic freedom which
sometimes even exceeds a gasp for its own survival.

Ari · Guest

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:58:47 +0200, Thomas Richter wrote:

[quote]Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Boon wrote:
biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don>t make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can>t even make one cent from it?

Wishful thinking
Pride
Defense (so no-one else can stop you)
Attack (in order to stop someone else)
Charity (you give it away)

Patents are nowadays not made to make money. They are used to defend
your company. It>s not usual that company A approaches company B to
collect some money (patent submarining), now if B has patents, B will
check whether there>s anything that can be applied to A>s technology, so
B has to negotiate. It>s a silly game, invented by patent lawyers, but
once this game has started, there>s no longer a way
to get around it. You *have* to have patents for this situation, so you
get them.

So long,
Thomas
[/quote]
Correct and as our patent attorneys say, "A patent isn>t worth a shit
until it is defended legally."
--
http://www.bushflash.com/idiot.html

Andrew Swallow · Guest

biject wrote:
[quote]I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM
[/quote]
So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
software.

Andrew Swallow

Rob Warnock · Guest

WTShaw <lurens1@gmail.com> wrote:
+---------------
| [Unruh wrote:]
| > You do not understand what the purpose of patents is. It is NOT simply a
| > monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
| > description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it.
|
| In looking at many patents, we see that which many here reject,
| "Security by Obscurity." Very far from complete descriptions, many are
| sketchy, even obviously misleading.
+---------------

Without full disclosure, the patent is technically fraudulent.
[More on this below...]

+---------------
| > The law in
| > exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
| > process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
| > complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
| > It is that tradeoff which is crucial --
|
| If that is the real purpose, I agree.
+---------------

As <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent> notes:

Etymology
The word patent originates from the Latin patere, which means
"to lay open" (i.e., to make available for public inspection) ...

and:

Rationale
...
2. In accordance with the original definition of the term "patent,"
patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations
into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did
not have the legal protection of patents, in many cases, they
would prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret. Awarding
patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly
available, for exploitation by anyone after the patent expires,
or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when
a patent>s term has expired, the public record ensures that the
patentee>s idea is not lost to humanity.

And <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient_disclosure> is more explicit:

Most patent law systems require that a patent application disclose
a claimed invention in sufficient detail for the notional person
skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention.
...
The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent
law. A state or government grants an inventor, or the inventor>s
assignee, a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for
the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his
or her invention. If a patent fails to contain such information,
then the bargain is violated, and the patent is unenforceable.

-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607

jules Gilbert · Guest

On Jul 27, 6:58 am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
[quote]biject wrote:
I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
software.

Andrew Swallow
[/quote]
I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get>s it; That
researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
near this concept.)

I have long been astounded at the ignorance of this group. But I>m
not so smart either -- I figured out how to represent a message in a
synchronized pseudo-random stream at the RCVE site years ago, (now
some of you are getting near that.) And I still can>t find a way to
sell it effectively.

So it looks like I lose to.

--jg

Unruh · Guest

jules Gilbert <jules.stocks@gmail.com> writes:

[quote]On Jul 27, 6:58=A0am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote:
biject wrote:
=A0I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don>t make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DDyc_oFc4fVM

So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
software.

Andrew Swallow

I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get>s it; That
researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
near this concept.)
[/quote]
?? No. a) There is no "right to compensation". I know many volunteers who
put in huge amounts of work and get paid nothing. Many wives and mothers
put in huge amounts of work and get paid nothing. There is no "right to
compensation". IF someone hires them to do research or anything else than
whoever hired them has a duty to pay them, but if a person does it on his
own, where did this right come from?

Secondly, patents are NOT rights to compensation. They are monopoly rights.
They grant the inventor a monopoly on the product for a certain period.
This carries with it no "right to compensation". It is a monopoly. It is as
if Starbucks if it opened a coffee shop in a city were granted a monopoly
on coffee shops in that city for the next 10 years. Anyone else who opened
one could be sued by Starbucks. That is what a monopoly is. It is an
anti-competitive vehicle.

Thirdly, the granting of monopoly rights may be of ultimate benefit to
society. In software it is far from clear that this is true. There are
enough people would would do it on their own, for free ( See Linux and the
15GB of software it has produced). Is the granting of an anticompetiive
monopoly justified in order to encourage work in the field? To me it is
unclear, not least because so few software things ARE patented.

[quote]I have long been astounded at the ignorance of this group. But I>m
not so smart either -- I figured out how to represent a message in a
[/quote]
Agreed.

[quote]synchronized pseudo-random stream at the RCVE site years ago, (now
some of you are getting near that.) And I still can>t find a way to
sell it effectively.
[/quote]

[quote]So it looks like I lose to.
[/quote]
So the patent (you did take out a patent didn>t you) brought you
compensation, which you claim it is for?

>--jg

Jim Leonard · Guest

On Jul 31, 1:07 pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote:
[quote]Completely untrue. It is extremely difficult to "disassemble a program" to
see how it works-- simply too long and at times to complicated. Have you
ever tried disassembling a forth program for example. And software is often
lost so it cannot be disassembled.-- almost all the programs distributed on
floppies are not lost-- they are unreadable both because the floppy drives
have disappeared and because the magnetic material has degraded.
[/quote]
You clearly haven>t cracked games, then :-) It is relatively easy to
disassemble a program and see how certain parts of it work (you don>t
bother with all of the program, since nobody cares about how the text
handling or datafile loading works, that>s not part of the
invention). It is also easy to modify it. And as for "software is
often lost", that>s the exception and not the rule. Floppy drives
have hardly "disappeared".

I understand you>re trying to make a point, but you should probably
pick a different metaphor.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Compression Forum	Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2