🚀 go-pugleaf

Terry Ritter:
   3.  Although I have tried to answer the previous post, I cannot
       continue with posts of this length.  Is it at all possible to
       cut back to fewer issues, saving some for another day, or is
       this all too intertwinkled?

You feel obligated to produce 860 line posts?

Craig Burley [on "what's a software patent"]:
   >A patent that does not involve/require the transformation of
   >matter, for example,

   OK, lets see how it works:

   How about a TELEPHONE; does *that* "transform matter?"  Would the
   Bell patent be a "software patent?"

If it does not cover the construction of a telephone, yes, that would
probably be a software patent.

   What about microphones and loudspeakers, organs, FM modulation, the
   Cathode Ray Tube, antennas, the transistor itself, and dynamic RAM
   storage cells; do *they* "transform matter?"

If a patent were to be written which restricted use of devices which
operated in this manner, instead of techniques for construction of
such devices, that might be called a software patent.

--------

   It is only to be expected that if one is not familiar with the
   patent literature one will also see no advantage to using it.
   Ordinarily this would be called "ignorance."

This is a logical fallacy known as a "straw man".  The point is not
that there is no advantage to using the patent literature.  The point
is that the benefits (in the case of software development) do not
outweigh the costs.  It is true that the patent literature is not as
useful or as accessible or as readable as other forms of literature on
software.  [This could be construed as a business opportunity by
some.]

   Although there is a lot of legal obfuscation in a patent, there is
   also a certain *clarity* about it.  Somebody is trying to define <a
   machine> in a way which _cannot_be_misunderstood_.  For someone who
   designs <machines>, this is fundamental and important, perhaps as
   important as calculus or matrix math is to a Physicist.

And, since when is software a machine?

Note that software patents easily apply to matrix math, if not
calculus.   The xor cursor patent, for example, may be expressed as 

    screen =: cusor ~: screen

where 'screen' and 'cursor' are matrices of bits, ~: toggles bits, and
=: assigns the result back into the 'screen' matrix.  Yeah, I've
glossed over cursor positioning here, so without further explanation:

   hot_spot =. size {. position }. i. $screen
   screen =: (cursor ~: hot_spot { screen) hot_spot } screen

I know that's not clear, but that's just because I've not defined all
of the matrix notation I'm using.  [Also note that there are ways of
defining the "toggle bits" operation, such as adding the two matrices
and taking the result modulo 2].

   Binary codings (not cryptology), are a good example of "algorithm"
   and "time".  But codings have long been subject to patent; coding
   theory involves a lot of expensive research, and the results are
   directly applicable to improving information flow and reducing
   error rate.  Algorithms and time, but not new.  This has been the
   way the PTO has operated, probably since the 50's.

This may be a problem.  If nothing else, it may be a hassle to
show the lack of validity of patents which have already expired.
Still, prior art is a wonderful concept.

I'd be interested in hearing about any such patents which seem similar
to patents on computer programming techniques.

   If software designers had the same competence in their field that
   hardware designers do in theirs, they would have no trouble getting
   around most patents.  And the remaining patents which cannot be
   avoided (after some study and work) really indicate how important
   they are.

This blatently assumes that (a) none of these software designers are
also competent hardware designers, or that (b) they can not be as
competent at the design of software as they are at the design of
hardware.

   ...

   This repeated attempt to imply that "software patents" are invalid
   because the computer does not go through physical changes is
   clearly specious.

That argument is that there is no construction or manufactoring of any
new devices.  If the only criteria for a patent to exist were the
existence of physical changes, thoughts would be patentable.

   >We ALL are making use of intellectual property that does not
   >"belong" to us.

   No, we are not.  The key word here is "property."  If it does not
   belong to someone, it is not their property.  Of course we stand on
   the shoulders of those who have gone before, and in 17 years, a new
   patent will be one more shoulder, and completely free.

Not really -- the patent office is perfectly capable of issuing
multiple patents on the same concept.  And, as I understand it, there
are already cases where this has occurred.

   To say that you have "20 new patentable ideas" is to say that *no
   other person* on the planet has seen fit to describe ANY of these
   ideas in print.  You may be smart, but *nobody* is *that* smart.
   Have you looked through Knuth lately?  Or the dragon book?  Or the
   rest of the huge literature of software ideas which now *cannot* be
   patented?  Relax; things are better than you think.

There are much more concise ways of expressing software concepts than
those used in Knuth.  Likewise, there are much simpler (and, imho,
more flexible) parsing techniques than those shown in the dragon book.
And yes, these have been published.

   Clearly, if the invention under examination had previously been
   assumed impossible (say, in papers in the field), and a way had
   been found to make the invention work, that would indicate that the
   invention was not quite as obvious as one might think.

So, bucket sorting is patentable?  Because traditional literature
ignores it?

   Stop putting words in my mouth.  You may very well have to slow
   down.  Not respecting patents which apply to software is not, at
   this time, an option.  If you conspire to avoid the law, you may
   personally be liable under it.

Not considering patents to apply to software is, however, an option.
Especially if I'm confident I can show prior art.  Irregardless of
previous court cases pursued by people who didn't know what they were
about.

   ...

   You are basically misstating the requirements; MANY patented
   mechanical devices do not "transform" matter in the sense of
   working it.  Mechanical things move.  Electronic devices change
   voltage.  Same thing.

Oh?  So the devices themselves are not patented, but certain modes of
operation are?  And these modes of operation do not produce other
devices which themselves are patented?  Tell me more!

-- 
Raul <rockwell@socrates.umd.edu>