Really? You know this how? And why would the guy expect freeware to be illegal (infringing on a f**king software patent!!!)? Obviously he removed the link when asked. If he knew it was illegal and didn't care, he would have left the link up.
By your logic, if someone asks where a crackhouse is, and a person tells them, that person is guilty of selling crack.
Quick! Drop everything and take the bar exam! You'll pass in a second.
You are exactly right. I have revised my stance on net neutrality laws for this very reason. The only way Congress will make a law is if it can be perverted to give big business and industry over everyone else. (Thanks for opening my eyes, Mike!) Trickle-down policies would have worked if those in power weren't so corrupt. But, of course, power itself corrupts.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can anyone please give an example
The simple fact is that loading software onto a computer does not make it a new machine. That argument is intellectually dishonest, just as loading a DVD into a player does not make it a different DVD player.
The problem is, the law has allowed itself to be abstracted too far. It has allowed a "machine or device" to become a "process", which then allowed ANY process to be covered.
Also, hardware patents require mechanical drawings. Software patents should require MACHINE CODE. No verbal abstractions, get the EXACT code for the processor that you wrote it for. Of course, copyright law covers this as well...
The problem is abstraction to the absurd level. The line should be clear. NO ABSRACTION.
Right. You've patented that particular implementation of the algorithms, not the algorithms themselves.
A software patent is a patent on an algorithm. That is why they should be abolished.
In other words, the line for patentability needs to be drawn at physical design, not conceptual design.
You're exactly right: there is no software that deserves patent protection. Why? Because software is content.
Patents cover devices. Copyrights cover content.
This was the rule until the late 90's, and it should be the rule again.
Synopsis of these links: Ubisoft said they weren't going to have the "always on" DRM in this game. People bought it, and it turned out Ubisoft lied.
No reason to believe them about Driver, either.
Also, Steam has been issuing refunds due to the inaccurate statement of Ubisoft.
Wicked business model. We'll see how well these guys fare.
Ya know, if I was trying to win a lawsuit like this, and they managed to hack my computer like this, I'd have to give up. Even if the contract was bogus, I'd admit defeat.
Well, I for one would not post if everyone knew who I was. I tend to take a more liberal view than most of my employers/coworkers here in the midwest. I don't need the hassle.
Yes, you have echoed the backwards-ass logic of the original article. "Patents are great, because the investors have more assets if we fail."
But did you start your business to fail? Of course not. Then why be so excited about an asset that is only useful after you have failed?
If the startup had the next round of funding, maybe it would have succeeded. We'll never know, because their patents were too valuable.
...until someone actually challenges these pathetic patents. 2001? Are you kidding me? There's tons of published articles (aka PRIOR ART) on database-driven mapping before then. SQL Server and Oracle had a special data type (blobs) to support bitmaps just for mapping! These guys are jokes.
If someone has the cash to do it, the can nail these jokers for court costs at the very least.
On the post: RealNetworks Destroying Dutch Webmaster's Life Because He Linked To A Reverse Engineered Alternative
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your logic, if someone asks where a crackhouse is, and a person tells them, that person is guilty of selling crack.
Quick! Drop everything and take the bar exam! You'll pass in a second.
On the post: DailyDirt: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sometimes I wish someone would cut the telco lines to the AC bomb shelter, but then we wouldn't get such delightful and scintillating conversation.
On the post: Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google
Re: Re: Punish success, reward failure
On the post: 'What Idiot Wrote The Patent That Might Invalidate Software Patents? Oh, Wait, That Was Me'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Can anyone please give an example
The problem is, the law has allowed itself to be abstracted too far. It has allowed a "machine or device" to become a "process", which then allowed ANY process to be covered.
Also, hardware patents require mechanical drawings. Software patents should require MACHINE CODE. No verbal abstractions, get the EXACT code for the processor that you wrote it for. Of course, copyright law covers this as well...
The problem is abstraction to the absurd level. The line should be clear. NO ABSRACTION.
On the post: 'What Idiot Wrote The Patent That Might Invalidate Software Patents? Oh, Wait, That Was Me'
Re: Re: Re: Can anyone please give an example
A software patent is a patent on an algorithm. That is why they should be abolished.
In other words, the line for patentability needs to be drawn at physical design, not conceptual design.
On the post: 'What Idiot Wrote The Patent That Might Invalidate Software Patents? Oh, Wait, That Was Me'
Re: Can anyone please give an example
Patents cover devices. Copyrights cover content.
This was the rule until the late 90's, and it should be the rule again.
On the post: Ubisoft Removes 'Always On' DRM From New Driver Game; Replaces It With Something Slightly Less Annoying
Re:
No reason to believe them about Driver, either.
Also, Steam has been issuing refunds due to the inaccurate statement of Ubisoft.
Wicked business model. We'll see how well these guys fare.
On the post: Paul Ceglia To Facebook: I Didn't Forge A Contract, You Did!
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re:
I guess that makes me truly f**ked up. Darn.
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Wow
On the post: 'Real Names' Doesn't Exactly Guarantee A High Level Of Conversation Either
Re: Re: Re: Wow!
...oh, I guess it does. ;)
On the post: Court Ruling Opens The Door To Rejecting Many Software Patents As Being Mere 'Mental Processes'
P.S. out_of_the_blue, try some anti-depressants. Then you can be a freetard like the rest of us.
On the post: Can't Stop Social Media-Driven UK Riots? Go After Social Media-Driven Water Gun Fights
Re: end of times
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Phrase 'Reasonable Compromise' Should Not Be Part Of Any 'Free Speech' Discussion
An inalienable right cannot be compromised.
Reasonable or otherwise.
On the post: How Getting A Patent Can Actually Be Detrimental To A Startup's Long Term Success
Re:
But did you start your business to fail? Of course not. Then why be so excited about an asset that is only useful after you have failed?
If the startup had the next round of funding, maybe it would have succeeded. We'll never know, because their patents were too valuable.
On the post: Stealing Isn't Saving, But Sharing Isn't Stealing
Should be "too" typical.
On the post: Shouldn't The Infringement Tracking System Used In New Six Strikes Program Be Open To Scrutiny?
Re:
How about, oh, I dunno, something meaningful to say? Or is this the Chewbacca attack?
On the post: Company Claims Patents On Generating A Map From A Database; Getting Real Estate Industry To Pay Up
Re:
If someone has the cash to do it, the can nail these jokers for court costs at the very least.
On the post: If Even The Death Penalty Won't Stop Infringement... Perhaps A Different Approach Is Needed
Re:
No sheep is safe tonight...
Next >>