Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 06:09 AM EST |
As long as they do this for gcc, that might work.
But if their other policies are anything to go by, all that would do is make
microsoft have the only "patent-safe" compiler.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 07:32 AM EST |
Software patents are 'patents that are particularly relevant to the software
community'. '[T]he elements of software are often defined using functional
language. [I]t is permissible to use functional language in patent claims...'.
So the invention that is patented is one 'defined using functional language'
(aka functions) and any software that is implemented to realise the functional
language definition (aka functions) is infringing.
What the USPTO overtly ignores is that functional language (aka functions) is
not statutory subject matter according to ยง 101.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:07 PM EST |
Maybe if they balanced things out.
Since if you knowingly infringe it is 3x damages, make it repay 3x settlements
when your patent is invalidated.
Require a bond to cover the costs when you assert the patent.
Pay a reward to the person who finds prior art which contributes to invalidating
a patent.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:21 PM EST |
Software = instructions provided to the device so the device follows a
process of computation.
Finger = instructions provided to the abacus so
the abacus follows a process of computation.
To patent "software as
applied to a computer" is exactly identical to patenting "fingers as applied to
an abacus".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|