|
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18185662 [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:33 AM EDT |
http://www.china.org.cn/business/2012-04/23/content_25211328.htm [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jsoulejr on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
On the copyright I think he said he swayed 1 or 2 votes. And on the patent
issues he kept trying to get the court to say something that would force the
others to follow him.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT |
Slashdot seems to have noticed this first!
Supreme Court Orders Do-Over On Key Software
Patents
Supreme Court Orders Do-Over
On Key Software
Patents [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
This concept confuses me.
When you look at the requirements for a CS
degree vs.
and BE degree? Both of them are heavily math based, to the
degree
that your are usually only a few hours away from an
actual BMATH or B.SC and
people often pick one of those as a
minor. The same goes for Chemistry (also
known as: Cooking
For Math Geeks).
Now why would that be you might
ask?
Because it IS all math.
When you patent a mechanical
device, in then end you are
placing a patent on a series of fulcrums, gears,
pulleys,
chemical reactions, etc.
In the end, it is ALL math.
So, what I cannot seem to figure out is, why is it that so
many in
the tech fields think that software should somehow
get a pass because it is
math, when that is also true of
virtually(?) all patents.
That said,
I cannot stand software patents and tend to
agree we would be better off
without them...just not sold on
this argument.
Even worse, I'm
afraid that this type of
mentality could even help work against any real reform
(in
the same way that RMS's fanaticism prevents many from taking
so much of
his ideas too seriously even though he has
accomplished such great things for
all of us).
Removing this argument of "Software is Math", then you
can
look at what the real needs and problems.
Some
Examples:
- Shorten duration to better reflect Tech life
cycles
- Create disclosure laws in an effort to prevent things
like
surprise patent attacks
- Revamp the vetting process to more easily allow
the
community and industry to quickly get patents rejected
- Greatly
speed up the Appeals/Review process
- Regulate/prohibit NDA's for patent
licensing (and talks)
to better encourage the "open" nature of patents and
invention
- Tax large standing patent portfolios to discourage
"everything under the sun" and "troll" type mentalities
- Legislate (and
this may cause 7th Amendment concerns)all
patent cases to judicial arbitration
for the first level
(quicker, cheaper, less shenanigans), followed by a "loser
pays" appeal system to a Jury trial as the second level
...or, perhaps
come up with a good reason why software
should be exempt from patents
altogether.
Am I missing something?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:39 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:40 PM EDT
- You ask good questions - Authored by: BJ on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT
- I've been making a similar point here for years - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:08 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
- Go to left of screen, find Search, Keyword- PoIR , Subject- Patents , Type- Stories - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Maths is not reality - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? Yes ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 10:18 PM EDT
- Challenge for those wishing to claim software is not math - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 10:36 AM EDT
- Ya lost me.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- Can somebody please explain the "Software is Math" argument to me? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 01:47 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:18 PM EDT |
If you can read German compare this
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/US-Jury-Android-verletzt-Oracle-Patente-n
icht-1583104.html
with the British version
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Jury-No-patent-infringement-in-Oracle-Goo
gle-case-1583107.html
All Heise Germany has to say is that the jury was dismissed according to The
Verge; and that the judge may reverse the jury's decision as it has already
happened in the copyrights phase.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 04:38 PM EDT |
Inquirer Article [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT |
Google’s patent trial
win seen as ‘near disaster’ for Oracle
Headlines like this seem a
bit karmic somehow.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tkilgore on Thursday, May 24 2012 @ 09:44 PM EDT |
Sorry if this story is too relevant for Off Topic.
Mulla Nasruddin served on occasion as a judge.
Once Nasruddin sat in judgment in a suit bought by a rich restaurant owner, who
was suing a poor man.
The poor man had nothing to eat except for an old, stale piece of bread. So he
went into the kitchen of the restaurant and held the bread above the soup pot to
absorb some of the rising steam.
The rich man took him to court and demanded that the poor man should pay for a
meal, since he had come into the restaurant and absorbed its flavor into the
bread.
Nasruddin then said to the poor man, "Do you have any money at all? If so,
hand it over."
Shocked, the poor man fished around for whatever coins he had and handed them
over. Then Nasruddin said to the rich restaurant owner, "Come here, close
to me."
When the rich man came close, Nasruddin held up the coins cupped between both of
his hands and shook his hands until the coins jingled right under the rich man's
ear. Then he gave the coins back to the poor man.
"Be satisfied," he said to the rich man. "You have wanted payment
for the smell of your soup, and you have been completely recompensed by hearing
the jingle of the defendant's money."
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:03 AM EDT |
The H So Google will own even more of the tablet
OS market, by adding another application framework. Nowhere near enough to
constitute a monopoly, thanks to Apple, far less an illegal monopoly, but even
so, I expect that a certain failing software company in Redmond, with a
forthcoming unwanted product in that area, will be bleating about it to the
anti-trust regulators. I happen to think that this is a good move. It would
have been even better if Enyo was GPL licensed. The GPL keeps people honest, and
we can't know what Google may do in the future. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, May 25 2012 @ 08:23 AM EDT |
The H This is good, especially as
someone reliable like Sir Tim is leading it. I seem to recall that the US
government was heading in roughly the same direction, maybe others too. I guess
that the point that openness actually benefits everyone is finally getting
across to the politicians. It is quite fascinating that what we imagine as a
"capitalist" government, and supposedly pro big business, is behind this, while
their "socialist" predecessors, supposedly governing on behalf of the people,
were basically closed-source Gates-worshippers. Or maybe it is just timing,
not politics, and it has finally become clear that openness really benefits
both businesses and individuals? If this view prevails across the political
spectrum, we are going to see big changes coming. There has already been talk
elsewhere about the problems with academic publishers. The monopolies and near
monopolies in various areas should be worried at this trend..... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|