Re: Patents again

[threeseas]

Paul Jarc wrote:
> Abdullah Ramazanoglu <abdullah@ramazanoglu.tr> wrote:
>
> > begin  threeseas <timrueAT@mindspringDOT.com> 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.
http://threeseas.net/mind/priorart1.html
or in html
http://threeseas.net/vic/IQ-ID/knmvic.iq