Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel (More info?)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:44:48 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:34:04 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:58:55 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>> Whatever is err, patentable?;-)
>>
>>You forget that IBM turned over 500ish patents to the open-software
>>community. You're not looking beyond the razors. You've just flunked
>>Gillette marketing 101. ;-)
>
> No I didn't forget - I didn't know in the first place.🙂 If they were
> software patents then I'm glad they did that because they should never have
> been awarded in the first place IMO.
I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I must stress the "sure" part
since that area makes me queezy too). Processes _are_ patentable. What is
software other than a rigid process?
> That *is* the world we are supposed
> to live in now I guess, with the EC[ptui] looking like forcing through
> approval of this eniquity as well (their parliament is being brushed
> aside by the EC[ptui] crypto-fascists), but that doesn't make it right.
> Just wait till the Chinese get themselves organized under such a
> framework.
The Chineese are joining the EU? We have *nothing* to worry about! ;-)
<snip>
>>>>There is no requirement to do this. You can keep *your* code private.
>>>> If that's what you're selling, it even makes sense. ;-)
>>>
>>> I'd rather pay for the OS, compiler and libraries and compete,
>>> unfettered by GPL-like impositions, on an even field.
>>
>>You are not "fettered" by having used GPL tools. You may indeed sell
>>your tools as OCO. IIRC, you may not package that code as part of
>>yours. I'm not a frappin' programmer <spit>, but that's my
>>understanding.
>
> As you well know, with any high level language it's impossible to
> distribute software without its library content. Anything which might
> currently allow that, on a limited basis, is just another rule, which is
> up for change on the whim of whoever has the reigns today.
Again (and please folks, correct me), that if the tools are part of GPL
tools you are *not* required to GPL or ship the sources of your
derivitave works. You are required to ship, or make otherwise available,
the GPL'd software you used. AIUI, there is no requirement to turn your
source code over to anyone, unless you decide it's to your benefit.
>>Your understangin of emplouer relationships is a little out of date too.
>>Many are encourraged to participate in OSS, within obvious conflict of
>>interest barriers, obviously.
>
> Things may be different where you are. FWIS, if anything, employer
> restrictions on outside and post-employment activities are getting more
> onerous and broader in their coverage.
Again, I'm not a programmer, but they are under fewer restrictions than
we hardware dweebs are. AIUI, programmers can donate stuff to OSS, but I
can't donate the same sorts of things to OpenCores. Obviously one has to
be aware of any conflicts of interest.
<snip>
>>I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure I understand the difference between
>>an algorithm and a process. Ok, I do work in the patent arena, but I do
>>shy away from anything with software in it. Processes aren't software
>>though, but it could easily be argued that they are algorithms. I'm not
>>smart enough to know the difference. You?
>
> Agree on what?... the patenting of algorithms? It's only in the past 20
> years or so that algorithms have been patentable - prior to that they
> were classed as an idea which is/was(?) not patentable; protection
> is/was available under copyright of the expression of the idea. Not
> sure how that sits vs. hardware processes but some differences are
> obvious... at least under the old rules.
Is there a difference. I'm sure you'll be horrified to know that even
"business processes" are patentable. If you have a process to do
*anything* it is patentable (within the obvious patent criteria).
> It's difficult to go into such things in a public forum but I was
> somewhat peripherally involved in an early algorithm patent err,
> quarrel; this thing was hailed on national news as a "mathematical
> breakthrough", though it was really only a twist on well known published
> methods. The abuse was glaring and inequitable - the only ones (large
> corps) who had the clout to do anything about it had a broad
> cross-license agreement with the (large corp) originator of the patent,
> so didn't care. The little guys got "penetrated"... even though their
> implementation of a modified version of the algorithm blew the big guy's
> one away.
There is nothing new here. Even if the "little guy" did get a patent he
hasn't the resources to defend the patent against a predetor. Gould was a
famous counterexample that proved this. ;-)
> We now have the (resulting) situation where hardly anything of note gets
> published anymore, as universities rush to the patent office to exact
> their pound of flesh. Apart from any legal ramifications, the previous
> situation was healthier and much more apt to produce real innovation,
> from my POV. The only ones who benefit from the status quo are the usual
> shysters.
Perhaps. I see this problem differently. As far as im'm concerned this
is an issue of ownership. If the widget was "discovered" under contract
from "you and me", what's this patent thing?
--
Keith
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 16:44:48 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:34:04 -0500, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:58:55 -0500, George Macdonald wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>> Whatever is err, patentable?;-)
>>
>>You forget that IBM turned over 500ish patents to the open-software
>>community. You're not looking beyond the razors. You've just flunked
>>Gillette marketing 101. ;-)
>
> No I didn't forget - I didn't know in the first place.🙂 If they were
> software patents then I'm glad they did that because they should never have
> been awarded in the first place IMO.
I'm not sure I agree with you here (though I must stress the "sure" part
since that area makes me queezy too). Processes _are_ patentable. What is
software other than a rigid process?
> That *is* the world we are supposed
> to live in now I guess, with the EC[ptui] looking like forcing through
> approval of this eniquity as well (their parliament is being brushed
> aside by the EC[ptui] crypto-fascists), but that doesn't make it right.
> Just wait till the Chinese get themselves organized under such a
> framework.
The Chineese are joining the EU? We have *nothing* to worry about! ;-)
<snip>
>>>>There is no requirement to do this. You can keep *your* code private.
>>>> If that's what you're selling, it even makes sense. ;-)
>>>
>>> I'd rather pay for the OS, compiler and libraries and compete,
>>> unfettered by GPL-like impositions, on an even field.
>>
>>You are not "fettered" by having used GPL tools. You may indeed sell
>>your tools as OCO. IIRC, you may not package that code as part of
>>yours. I'm not a frappin' programmer <spit>, but that's my
>>understanding.
>
> As you well know, with any high level language it's impossible to
> distribute software without its library content. Anything which might
> currently allow that, on a limited basis, is just another rule, which is
> up for change on the whim of whoever has the reigns today.
Again (and please folks, correct me), that if the tools are part of GPL
tools you are *not* required to GPL or ship the sources of your
derivitave works. You are required to ship, or make otherwise available,
the GPL'd software you used. AIUI, there is no requirement to turn your
source code over to anyone, unless you decide it's to your benefit.
>>Your understangin of emplouer relationships is a little out of date too.
>>Many are encourraged to participate in OSS, within obvious conflict of
>>interest barriers, obviously.
>
> Things may be different where you are. FWIS, if anything, employer
> restrictions on outside and post-employment activities are getting more
> onerous and broader in their coverage.
Again, I'm not a programmer, but they are under fewer restrictions than
we hardware dweebs are. AIUI, programmers can donate stuff to OSS, but I
can't donate the same sorts of things to OpenCores. Obviously one has to
be aware of any conflicts of interest.
<snip>
>>I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure I understand the difference between
>>an algorithm and a process. Ok, I do work in the patent arena, but I do
>>shy away from anything with software in it. Processes aren't software
>>though, but it could easily be argued that they are algorithms. I'm not
>>smart enough to know the difference. You?
>
> Agree on what?... the patenting of algorithms? It's only in the past 20
> years or so that algorithms have been patentable - prior to that they
> were classed as an idea which is/was(?) not patentable; protection
> is/was available under copyright of the expression of the idea. Not
> sure how that sits vs. hardware processes but some differences are
> obvious... at least under the old rules.
Is there a difference. I'm sure you'll be horrified to know that even
"business processes" are patentable. If you have a process to do
*anything* it is patentable (within the obvious patent criteria).
> It's difficult to go into such things in a public forum but I was
> somewhat peripherally involved in an early algorithm patent err,
> quarrel; this thing was hailed on national news as a "mathematical
> breakthrough", though it was really only a twist on well known published
> methods. The abuse was glaring and inequitable - the only ones (large
> corps) who had the clout to do anything about it had a broad
> cross-license agreement with the (large corp) originator of the patent,
> so didn't care. The little guys got "penetrated"... even though their
> implementation of a modified version of the algorithm blew the big guy's
> one away.
There is nothing new here. Even if the "little guy" did get a patent he
hasn't the resources to defend the patent against a predetor. Gould was a
famous counterexample that proved this. ;-)
> We now have the (resulting) situation where hardly anything of note gets
> published anymore, as universities rush to the patent office to exact
> their pound of flesh. Apart from any legal ramifications, the previous
> situation was healthier and much more apt to produce real innovation,
> from my POV. The only ones who benefit from the status quo are the usual
> shysters.
Perhaps. I see this problem differently. As far as im'm concerned this
is an issue of ownership. If the widget was "discovered" under contract
from "you and me", what's this patent thing?
--
Keith
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram