[Apologies for cross-postings]
[Please distribute]
7th Sound and Music Computing Summer School
Embodied Sound and Music
02-06 July 2011, Padova, Italy
Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova
Conservatorio Cesare Pollini, Padova
http://smc2011.smcnetwork.org/summer_school.htm
Hi Andy
Andy Farnell wrote:
AXIOM: Ideas should not be patentable. Period.
Do I need to explain this?
Sorry, you've lost me a bit here. Pehaps you do need to explain it.. see if
I'm twisting your words below or if you find that I'm addressing your
position (of course I don't expect you to
I am not completely against patents per se.
As far I understand things, at least in US Patent Law is
that there is no formal peer review process.
For the most part, the only time you see an application is
after a patent is granted. At that point its largely too late.
If you have a patent,
Hi Andy
Are you suggesting by stating the above axiom that algorithms are
_simply_
ideas and that for this reason alone they shouldn't be patentable?
Yes I am, you've got it.
An algorithm is unsufficiently concrete to deserve a patent, it is an
abstraction, a generalisation.
Ok...
An
On 31/01/2011, Ross Bencina rossb-li...@audiomulch.com wrote:
Scenario: I invest 1000s of person-years devising a completely original
ultra-fast zero-latency convolution algorithm.
Might I humbly suggest that the life extension technology which would
enable you to take thousands of person-years
On 31/01/2011 12:53, Andy Farnell wrote:
..
AXIOM: Ideas should not be patentable. Period.
Er, they aren't, and never have been.
Any patent has to describe a ~device~ - a machine, a thing that can be
built - hence the ubiquitous term preferred embodiment. If an
invention cannot be expressed
