Alex wrote:
I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and
I'm just a wishful thinker.
Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective
backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough
irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to
Your intent is good, but since it takes a few million dollars to overturn
a dud patent yet only a few thousand to apply for one, it's possible that
just shooting down bad patents may not be a viable long term strategy. ;)
However, shooting down this one specifically, might be a way to garner
m
I know most of you will think this idea is lame and far fetched and I'm
just a wishful thinker.
Would it be possible that we, as a group with all our collective
backgrounds in software development, could actually gather enough
irrefutable evidence so that it might be presented to a judge to pr
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 20:12 -0700, Mike White wrote:
> Probably, but you would have to challenge it in court to make it stick.
Which is a major problem because the expense of doing that eliminates
the majority of SMEs from ever even thinking about it. Even Local
Education Authorities with 100 scho
One problem is the junk patent which is far too vague and covers obvious
developments and covers prior art. Two perl modules come to mind right
off "Storeable" and "Data::Dumper";, I'm sure there are other serialization
modules in C libraries or even Pascal if one wants examples going back to
It covers practically everything you do with data on a computer, right from
the earliest stored procedure Eniac/whathaveyou right up to the most minimal
CE or embedded piece of code that runs your morning wake up radio or beeps at
you from your wristwatch.
Do a google on (fraudulent misrepresen
Probably, but you would have to challenge it in court to make it stick.
Mike
> -Original Message-
> From: Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 7:05 PM
> To: discuss@openoffice.org
> Subject: Re: [discuss] Another MS XML patent
>
>
>
Now having re-read the proper patent. I still don't see how they could
be awarded a patent on what appears to be nothing more that converting a
data structure defined in one file to a serial stream in another file.
Sounds like storing a record in a database to me. :-\ I think Borland
was doi
My patent attorney and I had a conversation about claims standing alone
recently and apparently if they can be infringed alone they can also be
awarded alone and alone prevent you from using what is claimed without
license. This I'm fairly sure of.
As to communication between computers, I'll
My bad - I misspelled his surname - it's Pearse.
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html
http://www.nzedge.com/heroes/pearse.html
http://chrisbrady.itgo.com/pearse/pearse.htm
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/Pearse/Pearse.html
http://www.destination.co.nz/temuka/pearse.htm
http://www
On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:23:23 PM -0700, Chris BONDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
1) Please, NEVER retransmit pages and pages of text only to add a
couple of lines. Always trim as much as possible! Thanks
> Hey, guys should not we take this to social?
No, why?
First of all I'm not on that list. I
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Chris BONDE wrote:
>
> > >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
> > >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
> >
> > That is neither the intention, no
Hey, guys should not we take this to social?
It is becoming less and less discussing.
Chris
> M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> > You can do it with small material things which can be built with
> > *very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again
> > unlike software, everybody plays by t
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> >--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel,
> >>
> >>All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
> >>You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
> >>old ones
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Sander Vesik wrote:
>
> >--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
> >>communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
> >>means. If this patent is e
M. Fioretti wrote:
In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the
perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For
those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are
granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something
simi
M. Fioretti wrote:
Of course. But if they do it for profit, they will only shell the
money out if there is the possibility (through patents) to get more
back.
Look, I don't question that patents let companies make more money than
they would otherwise. What I'm saying is that (1) they can stil
Sander Vesik wrote:
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel,
All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
old ones" and that is true.
They did not invent anything, although there patent
Sander Vesik wrote:
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
communicating on an
On Tue, May 31, 2005 19:28:51 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Heavy capital investment isn't new, but it has been for a long time
> >reserved, for any reasons, only to religious or politic, anyway
> >monolithic and centralized, administrations
>
> I'm pretty sure that rich
On Tue, May 31, 2005 01:34:50 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> >In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the
> >perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For
> >those of us in the US, our constitution states clea
On Tue, May 31, 2005 21:46:03 PM +1200, Wesley Parish
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> One NZ inventor - Richard Pierce - who believed in this
> "working-in-secret" has the distinction of never having his
> inventions in the fields of aviation or anything else, actually get
> taken up anywhere. So as
Nicolas, I'm bringing the discussion back to the list, were I wanted
to keep it. It is only by mistake (damned webmail) that I replied to
you and not to OO.o in the message to which you answered below.
On Tue, May 31, 2005 12:10:04 PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> On Mar
M. Fioretti wrote:
That's not the point I was making. I never said "new = bad" and I
don't know how you got that impression.
From your sentence above: "The thing about using patents to "protect"
invention is actually a very recent aberration in a few fields".
Trust me, I didn't mean to imply
On Tue, May 31, 2005 01:30:51 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> >The architecture of a new microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of
> >paper,
>
> The issue is cost. That drawing (which would not fit on any piece of
> paper I know of) is very expensive to do. The point is n
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 21:46 +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> --- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells.
> >
>
> But Daniel, all of these are positively *BURIED* in patents.
Software is different from other commodities. Pat
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> x86 processor, solar cells, fusion technology, cars, fuel cells.
>
But Daniel, all of these are positively *BURIED* in patents.
> > The architecture of a new
> > microprocessor can be drawn on a piece of paper,
>
> The issue is cost. That dra
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive than
> cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive model (some
> new fuels are cheaper, others aren't). They still grow progress in
> incremental steps. It's also
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
> You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
> old ones" and that is true.
> They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> > Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all
> > possible patents in every field, didn't you?
>
> I used the word "idea" and "idea" is precisely what I mean. Ideas are
> not constrained to software. If
--- Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Hines wrote:
>
> >> I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
> >> monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
> >
> > Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly
> > rights
>
> No, they are *very* differe
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try
> to stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we
> created two applications on two networked computers that communicated
> via some protocol. Read claim 1 and t
--- Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
> communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
> means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
> communicating on any form of communic
--- Eric Hines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 05/30/05 10:57, you wrote:
> >Eric Hines wrote:
> >
> >>Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
> >
> >I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
> >monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
>
> Patent monopol
--- Joseph Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder if it cost money to apply for patents?
>
yes, of course
> What's frustrating is I've look at a couple of articles regarding this
> and the general stance of the patent office is let the courts decide.
> Total B.S. its their job to review t
--- Joseph Roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that
> covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be
> sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen.
>
> Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!!
On Tue, 31 May 2005 15:38, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
>
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Chris BONDE wrote:
> > >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
> > >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
On Tue, 31 May 2005 12:23, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Chris BONDE wrote:
> > Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way
> > of expressing the idea.
>
> In which way is a copyright a monopoly over an idea?
A copyright on a document or work of art protects the expression
On Tue, 31 May 2005 08:30, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
> >>I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work.
> >
> > Stallman teaches us that copyright and patents are deeply different
> > beasts, so we shouldn't mix them, but, in the interest of a
> > stimulating and f
M. Fioretti wrote:
In "Free Software, Free Society", R.M. Stallman "talks about the
perversion of the original intent of patent and copyright law. For
those of us in the US, our constitution states clearly that these are
granted for the benefit of society. Most other countries say something
simi
M. Fioretti wrote:
Isn't this because there is no market for them, that is the fact that
they are scientific *instruments*, not stuff you could need at home or
sell at the mall? I am all for basic research, but again, does this
apply?
This is like expensive pharmaceutical labs. I'm not saying
On Tue, May 31, 2005 00:30:00 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> M. Fioretti wrote:
>
> >>>Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
> >>>idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
> >>
> >>That is neither the intention, nor the eff
On Tue, May 31, 2005 00:16:44 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Actually, very large particle accelerators are a lot more expensive
> than cars and microprocessors and they don't use the restrictive
> model (some new fuels are cheaper, others aren't).
Isn't this because there
M. Fioretti wrote:
Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
That is neither the intention, nor the effect of patents.
As far as I know, it indeed *is*. I (government):
1) make sure that everybody can
M. Fioretti wrote:
Another example: google for "synthetic diamonds" which have a lot of
useful industrial applications,
Indeed, and this link suggests that the existence of patents did not
accelerate the creation of synthetic diamonds at any point, but at
several points did slow it down:
h
M. Fioretti wrote:
You can do it with small material things which can be built with
*very* little space and money, or in "environments" where, again
unlike software, everybody plays by the same rules. But you can't
"release early and often" new fuels, cars, microprocessors, or the
extremely comp
On Tue, May 31, 2005 05:27:04 AM +0200, io ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > I believe that this development model should be discouraged in
> > favour of the "small step" model. Similar to the FOSS mantra
> > "release early, and release often".
>
> Your thesis is interesting indeed and it would be a
On Mon, May 30, 2005 20:23:13 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Chris BONDE wrote:
> >Now the basic concept of rewarding a person for disclosing their
> >idea to the world instead of keeping it a secret is good (patent).
>
> That is neither the intention, nor the effect of pa
On Mon, May 30, 2005 16:30:36 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "What? Is Daniel crazy? Did he just say not to reward hard work?"
>
> I'm not crazy yet :-) and I do see where you're comming from. But I
> think I have an interesting, and outside-the-box thought here:
> What you
On Mon, May 30, 2005 16:39:12 PM -0700, Chris BONDE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>
>
> > On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are
> > different. If you come to my home, see m
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 20:24 -0400, Daniel Carrera wrote:
> Chris BONDE wrote:
>
> > I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's" FOTFL
>
> "FOTFL"? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
Falling On The Floor Laughing.
Dave
Chris BONDE wrote:
I like the last sentence LOL, also the reference of 'That's" FOTFL
"FOTFL"? I'm not familiar with that acronym.
Cheers,
Daniel.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail:
Chris BONDE wrote:
Both copyrights and patents are monopolies on ideas, just a different way of
expressing the idea.
In which way is a copyright a monopoly over an idea?
I believe that "an expression of an idea" and an "idea" are very
different. I accept that the former should be "protected",
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Absolutely yes. That's copyright realm. But inventions and patents are
> different. If you come to my home, see my half dome photograph, and
> inspired by that go to Yosemite to make much better ones, none o
> Eric Hines wrote:
>
> > Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
>
> I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
> monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
>
> > --it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs
> > innovation
>
> I've n
If this bothers you then write your EU representative or that of the EU
country you have business or project partners in:
http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep6/owa/p_meps2.repartition?ilg=EN
Otherwise, the situations is likely to get worse. As monopoly rents go
away, look for more things li
Daniel,
All I was pointing out was that MS didn't even do what you suggested.
You said "since all ideas are based on relatively small modifications of
old ones" and that is true.
They did not invent anything, although there patent would lead you to
believe otherwise. *grin*
Cheers back at y
M. Fioretti wrote:
I can accept a copyright-style protection for your actual work.
Stallman teaches us that copyright and patents are deeply different
beasts, so we shouldn't mix them, but, in the interest of a
stimulating and friendly discussion, I'll byte.
Yes, indeed. I should have writte
The most critical function of a patent or a copyright is that it allows the
owner (I'll call this person, for now) of the thing--the invention, the
implementation of an idea, etc--to assert ownership of that thing. With
that ownership comes the ability to mandate, for the duration of that
owne
On Mon, May 30, 2005 10:57:42 AM -0700, OldSarge
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
[two screenfuls of text snipped]
> To All: Does anybody know what the Linux industry's take on this
> patent is? Are they going to challenge it?
To all: may we all avoid to retransmit every time a lot of text that
every l
On Mon, May 30, 2005 13:43:46 PM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> If you invent a new light bulb or an antigravity engine I should be able
> to use the ideas behind them to make my own bulb and antigravity
> engine.
Absolutely yes, that's why patents have limited duration. W
Joseph wrote:
> What a joke the patent office is.
Understandable, considering that they are based upon number of patents
_approved_.
It would be much better if the default were to _reject_ patents, and
the performance based upon rejected patents as a percentage of
submitted patents.
Get a bonu
Eric Hines wrote:
At 05/30/05 11:21, you wrote:
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by
any means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the
methods of communicating on any form of co
M. Fioretti wrote:
Maybe you meant _software_ or _algorithm_ _only_ patents, not all
possible patents in every field, didn't you?
I used the word "idea" and "idea" is precisely what I mean. Ideas are
not constrained to software. If I draw a painting about a dragon, I
should not be able to pr
Eric Hines wrote:
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly
rights
No, they are *very* different. Copyright covers works, patents cover
ideas. The things you listed (l
On Mon, May 30, 2005 11:57:50 AM -0400, Daniel Carrera
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Eric Hines wrote:
>
> >Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
>
> I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
> monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
>
Maybe you meant
At 05/30/05 11:21, you wrote:
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
communicating on any form of communication means app
At 05/30/05 10:57, you wrote:
Eric Hines wrote:
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
Patent monopoly rights are very similar to copyright monopoly rights--just
n
Alex wrote:
I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try to
stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we
created two applications on two networked computers that communicated
via some protocol. Read claim 1 and think about how broad it is.
I w
I agree with you, Daniel, about improvements, but, this patent is try
to stake a claim on something that we have all been doing ever since we
created two applications on two networked computers that communicated
via some protocol. Read claim 1 and think about how broad it is.
Alex Janssen
D
I read this patent and I think it covers every conceivable method of
communication between computers done by applications, connected by any
means. If this patent is enfoceable, Microsoft would own the methods of
communicating on any form of communication means applications could
communicate wi
Eric Hines wrote:
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one
I'd agree about copyrights, but not patents. I think that getting a
monopoly on an IDEA is ridiculous.
--it compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs
innovation
I've never seen any evidence
There's usually a fee for filing a patent--to keep out the frivolous ones, yet.
Actually, the concept of patents and copyrights is a good one--it
compensates the inventor(s) for their efforts, and so spurs innovation--the
performance of the open source community notwithstanding. We--all of
us
I wonder if it cost money to apply for patents?
What's frustrating is I've look at a couple of articles regarding this
and the general stance of the patent office is let the courts decide.
Total B.S. its their job to review the patents for clear innovation, not
to hand them out for ever 'diffe
If you generalize this just a bit--and it would still most likely remain
within the required specificity of patent offices--to simply have a
triggering event to cause the signal... and don't mandate a wire, then
you'll own TVs, telephones, cell telephones, kids' can-and-string toys,
etc. You'l
What a joke the patent office is. I think I'll try for a patent that
covers when some object strikes another object causing signals to be
sent down a wire that produces an object on a screen.
Ha! then I'll own the keyboard! Pay up suckers!!
JB
Graham Lauder wrote:
Approved! Unbelievable!
Graham Lauder wrote:
Approved! Unbelievable!
http://www.builderau.com.au/program/work/0,39024650,39190121,00.htm
8-(
The original article in ZDNet
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,39020384,39200380,00.htm
--
Graham Lauder
OpenOffice.org MarCon New Zealand
(http://marketi
77 matches
Mail list logo