[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Patents again

From: threeseas
Subject: Re: Patents again
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:05:17 GMT
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (X11/20040626)

Paul Jarc wrote:
Abdullah Ramazanoglu <> wrote:

begin  threeseas <> dedi ki:

The fact of the matter is that patents on software are mostly all bogus anyway, and that is what is going to be determined.

What is simply happening now is that the patent office doesn't have the time to really do the work of computer science, and they shouldn't have to for that is a job for computer science, not the patent office. So they simply pass it off to the legal system, by issuing patents on anything that passes the paperwork abstraction test.

Wishful thinking. Just because you think it *should* be done in a certain
way, that doesn't mean it *is* going to happen that way.

Furthermore, patent office passing bogus patents to legal system is only
welcomed by big players, as it only plays into their hands.

I'm not sure, but I think you may be misinterpreting threeseas.  (Or
else I am.)  That first quoted paragraph seems like a description of
what should happen, and saying that it will happen may be wishful
thinking, arguably.  But the second paragraph seems to match many
others' descriptions of what actually is happening, and I don't think
threeseas is saying that this is a good thing.

Patent examiners have a set amout of time to research a patent application. Now if it were your job, intentionally or not, wouldn't you focus on what you can be more certain of, such as the criteria (sp?) of a patent (ie. is all the rethoric and abstractions in teh acceptable patent application format? -- Probably the first thing a patent examiner looks for.... for if it not then it's a simple message top the patent applicant of their error or lack of information)... and then from there if there search finds nothing along teh same rethoric being used.... it's safe to assume it perhaps a viable patent application..... like teh swinging sideways on a swing patent (a former patent examiner or lawyer was teaching his kid about patent via actual application filing and feedback loop of correction --- they never expected the application to be approved --- So why would it be?? All teh rethoric and abstraction formating was in order and there was no conflicting patent already...)

What the poster snipped from my original message:

"like it or not but there is a physics to abstraction creation and use. And this will all come out as natural laws governing the physical phenomenon of abstraction creation and use. Furthermore thru the use of an algorythimic automation machine.

If you all understand what is not patentable, then you'll understand this. If you don't, then go to the patent offices and look it up. "

--- NOW, this is what the the "first paragraph", as you said, is refering to.

I assure you, its not a maybe, it is going to happen because its already being set up to happen. Companies like Novell and their putting their patent portfolio behind Linux.....Maybe they see it comming too and making the best of their portfolio with what is comming via such PR...

There is also a book by MS finally published recently. "Software Factories...." Which is what I expected MS to try and do. That is to try and distort and bias this comming change or clairity of understanding about software, towards themselves. For MS is not an innovator but a marketing company, first and formost.

The human mind is an interesting tool, for if you set something aside, after a bit of focus on it, later when you look at it again fresh, you see better past the BS (Biased Sneakiness).

Anyways, its happening.

Programming is the act of automating complexity, typically made up of recursively simpler complexities, in order to make the use and reuse of that complexity easy for the user of that complexity to use it over and over.

the physics are real and unpatentable, though many are trying to claim patents to constrain .... well, this reality of abstraction physics.

Imagine if only you could had patented the zero (nothingness place holder) and make all pay you royalities for using it --- how far would we be today... Would we even have gotten to the point of our first tube computer??? Where would we be if there wasn't a "one click" patent (amazon).... might have online shopping become a mush more active market place than it is?

There are nine action constants. three primary user interfaces, together they form the basis or foundation of this "physics of abstraction creation and use and appliable thru computers"...

And get this. The USPTO themselves published a document on it... though they didn't write it.
or in html

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]