Article View: comp.sys.mac.apps
Article #2239Re: Look & Feel
From: Jon W{tte
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:28
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:28
46 lines
2824 bytes
2824 bytes
.edu> greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes: > And this is no small point. If you look at most of the programming tools that > you talk about as "basic" or "fundamental" that you are worried about having > to license, you will see that the vast majority are old enough that, even if > they had been patented, they would be public domain now. > >Like a host-independent byte order, or hashing to find a match >in LZ77 compression ? Who said that nothing *useful* would be under patent? Some people were claiming that the face of programming would be changed forever as the most fundamental techniques which all programmer's use (like quicksort, for example) would require licensing. I hardly think that the two examples that you cite can be considered, at this time, to be fundamental techniques that all (or most) programmer's can be expected to use. HUH !? I independently (re-)discovered both of these techniques without even thinking about it. It's not algorithms; it's like patenting the addition operator. I really think we need to inject some reality here--the reaction I see here seems to border on hysteria over the "patent menace." What if someone painted a painting of an apple, and forbade everyone else to paint apples. That's the kind of patents we get now. However, using the EXACT SAME apple (hash function, communications protocol) could be protectable without too many problems. As I have said before, I do *not* know how patents should (or should not) be applied to algorithms, but let's try to deal approach the question with rational expectations. That's what I'm doing, by showing what's wrong with the present situation (and what some in the industry want to move towards) -- - I have decided that it is not boxes but my lack of skill that's the problem. - Traitor! This kind of attitude will get you nowhere around here. If you must know, it's not your boxes that are the problem, it's your lack of a sufficient number of boxes. Go out and buy something.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<D88-JWA.92Aug17212850@dront.nada.kth.se>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kth.se!dront.nada.kth.se!d88-jwaReferences:
<D88-JWA.92Aug14130203@dront.nada.kth.se> <1992Aug15.090110.17627@newstand.syr.edu> <D88-JWA.92Aug16211653@dront.nada.kth.se> <1992Aug17.085411.1754@newstand.syr.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kth.se!dront.nada.kth.se!d88-jwa
From: d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte)
Subject: Re: Look & Feel
In-Reply-To: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu's message of Mon, 17 Aug 92 08:54:11 EDT
Message-ID: <D88-JWA.92Aug17212850@dront.nada.kth.se>
Originator: d88-jwa@dront.nada.kth.se
Sender: usenet@kth.se (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dront.nada.kth.se
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
References: <D88-JWA.92Aug14130203@dront.nada.kth.se>
<1992Aug15.090110.17627@newstand.syr.edu>
<D88-JWA.92Aug16211653@dront.nada.kth.se>
<1992Aug17.085411.1754@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:28:50 GMT
Lines: 46