|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 04:53 PM EST |
And by demanding that details of the mechanism be included in all
patents...
And here I was, assuming the USPTO already required such info:
The
specification must include a written description of the invention and of the
manner and process of making and using it, and is required to be in such full,
clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most
nearly connected, to make and use the same.
[Pity the USPTO
software examiners do not read the USPTO's own website.] for without such
details of the mechainsm included in "full, clear, concise and exact terms" no
one else will be able to build it![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Saturday, November 24 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST |
While it may be difficult, if we can show that software patents (as patents on
maths, free speech, or ideas) were illegally granted, they SHOULD just go
"pouf" in a cloud of smoke!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 25 2012 @ 04:37 AM EST |
Patent advocates have ignored people in the software industry and run roughshod
over us for years. Why are they deserving of any consideration for their
incorrect ideas. Why should their greed and selfishness be accommodated. Get rid
of patents period. No compromise.
What you are saying is basically "Lets compromise and only pay the mafia
'some' protection money in future." Why would we want to do that?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RideOn on Monday, November 26 2012 @ 01:26 PM EST |
I'm not sure the comparison of the slide lock to a cubicle door or shed door
latch matters. If the patent is written so that the slide lock is described as
a method to prevent accidental actuation of controls on a touch sensitive
surface, which is precisely its purpose, then it may well be a novel mechanical
patent which applies only to functional devices. It could apply equally well to
a drawing toy with a switch to withdraw the working surface from contact with
the drawing stylus. The actual implementation in software is irrelevant and need
not be covered in the patent.
Programmers should no more have to be wary of the algorithms and techniques that
they use than a chef should have to be concerned that an inspired pairing of
three specific vegetables in a particular sauce may infringe on another
restaurant's menu offerings.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- A third way. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 08:36 AM EST
|
|
|
|