iuygtfnh

4 ms·

1.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
>it seems to me the issue would be whether writing the code for patented software constitutes "making" it. That's the problem with software patents. The patent must be published - that the whole point. But in software writing down the
2.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
The supreme court decided to let people fight it out in court. What this means is that patents only work for cartels of large companies forming a patent pool to keep a technology (eg. H264) to themselves and patent trolls who have no other
3.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
Microsoft is currently suing Apple over the page turn on the iPad's ebook reader. They have a patent on the idea of using a page turning gesture to go to the next page in a book on a computer, together with the idea of showing a page is tur
4.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
Not in the US, although implementation patents are easier to defend you can write very broad patents. You can have a business method patent, eg look at the prices charged by various retailers and buy the lowest one, or even a patent on the
5.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
But what about a battlefield surveillance drone that can loiter for months? Or a flying antennae that can provide GSM/Wifi/etc over a festival or disaster site at a few hours notice?
6.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
>Landmark has a method for music-matching. No they have a patent the idea of music-matching, not the implementation. I could have a patent on the idea of a car that defies gravity - and you pay up when you actually invent a flying car.
7.
by iuygtfnh 16y ago
Should be an easy function - if you don't want them to have side-effects