[Osiri]

Aldo,

Your basic building blocks are completely safe.  I swear.

Bubble sort or anything you learned in your course of study is public domain.

It always was.  If you remember from your computer science studies, those algorithms were in logic and math long before the first electronic computer was ever developed.

Much like E=MC2.  

The reason I keep saying that something that I use as an example is not reality is because I am not really wanting to look up a true example.  

We agree on the basics I keep trying to point that out.  

Basic algorithms are completely unpatentable.

New ones... ones that are not basic, are patentable.


Software is not part of a scientific endevour.  It is a science.  But the results of it are as patentable as a process in Chemistry.  

If I come up with a new way to make a product in chemisty.  I am discovering the physical truth.  However that does not mean it is unpatentable.

It could be that new material could be a cure all.  That does not make it unpatentable..

Your philosphical argument is that free exchange is hampered by patents.  True.  
However, the other side that someone should reap the fruits of thier work is also true.  

There is a balance in patent law and IP in general.

It is not just that for any research you get to keep everything you create and everything that can come from it.  Just obvious variants.

I am vested to some extent.  I am a scientist as well Aldo.  I have a computer science degree.  I am also a Patent Agent and soon to be a Patent Lawyer.

I see both sides where you only see one.

Which is why I say there needs to be advancement.  I also see that the inventor needs to eat.

[aldo_14]

Basic building blocks need to advance too.

[Osiri]

Basic building blocks need to be discovered.

One more thing, about the MS is-not operator patent if you want to have fun I will help you screw them over.

If you can find me a old description of the is-not operator, I will tell you how to submit it as a source to be considered by the patent office.

[Osiri]

If it is essentially the same thing, you will be able to block thier patent.

All I need to know is the reference and you need to be willing to send it to the USPTO.

Citing I believe is free.  

That is what the point of our publishing before the release of patents.   So that people like us can stop a patent from happening when we know for a fact it should not.

__________________
At 5:01 PM

Man no one wants to cite me a reference huh? I was actually quite serious.


__________________

[Osiri]

Man no one wants to cite me a reference huh? I was actually quite serious.

[Ghostavo]

Lisp programming language

(neq a b)

Still, someone trying to patent a logic operator is... very disturbing... who wants to patent division?

*raises hand*

[Osiri]

Okay, by reference I mean I need to know an actual publication that cites a previous example of IS-NOT being applied in this way.

Not just a common knowledge example I need to know that someone has  publication that cites this thing.  

With that I will tell him or her how to send that publication to the PTO.  I am looking for someone who hates Microsoft enough to do this.  I mean come on lets have some fun.

I need him --->   (because he is motivated)

Everyone here is complaining about the patent system.  Stop whining and do something about it.

Like this -----> Microsoft:hammer:

Like I said you even get the benefit of being able to tell your friends you screwed Microsoft over.

And you can be like this guy --->  :thepimp:


God I still love that first post on this page about beating me with a shivan plushy.  

[Osiri]

Man I guess no one is interested

[Ghostavo]

I'm not aware of a "publication" (book?) but, won't any Lisp compiler or manual do the job?

[aldo_14]

Um, why would a Scot give a monkeys about the USPTO?

 I would be extremely surprised if there wasn't already an ongoing challenge, anyways.

Regardless of previous use (search any programming forum in the last 10, 15 years and you'll find the principle of inequality cited), isn't there the test of obviousness?

[q]
Title 35 Part 2 Chapter 10 Section 103
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. [/q]

I'm not sure how you could patent (for example) '!=' but not '=='.  It's mindbogglingly stupid and, as I think the CEO of Realmedia said,  has no purpose beyond suing.

EDIT; actually, this is somewhat OT given that I don't think there's a single sane individual in the world who thinks ISNOT is a valid patentable feature.  Even one of the named individuals in the patent posted in his blog sounding not entirely enamoured (apparently MS need to name individuals in the patent, and then have them transfer it to the company).

[Osiri]

I know section 103

I was simply saying that you could help fix the problem you see.  Why not take action to ensure that Microsoft gets screwed.  

I mean you have complained about it for days but now you don't want to actually find something and send it in.  

The test of obviousness needs to have a prior art.  

Read the is-not patent carefully and figure out what they are really patenting.

[Osiri]

By the way guys...

I guess it is a little late to tell you this but the abstract has nothing to do with the scope of the patent or the interpretation of the claims.

[Grey Wolf]

If you look through some of the patents, you can see some are entirely BS. They're so vague they could cover basically anything.

[Osiri]

Oh come on it is well known that many patents are BS.  The thing is they are issued by mistake or extremely good BSING by the attorney behind them.  They can be shot down for free by simply citing it.  If the commissioner of patents does his job he will declare a ex parte reexamination.  

Just by saying they are BS does not mean you should ignore them.  Nor that you should sit around and complain about it without doing something about it.

[Osiri]

You must also realize that many BS patents have such a small scope that they cover nothing.  

Even the Microsoft patent is only directed at BASIC (at least on cursory scan).  Plus if I remember correctly BASIC itself does not have memory access.(been 5-6 years since I looked at basic.)

The end result honestly of the IS-NOT patent is it will have no effect on C++ or C or etc.  Who cares about BASIC.  Maybe Visual Basic but who cares about that.  

Realistically it will do nothing anyhow.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
I know section 103

I was simply saying that you could help fix the problem you see.  Why not take action to ensure that Microsoft gets screwed.  

I mean you have complained about it for days but now you don't want to actually find something and send it in.  

The test of obviousness needs to have a prior art.  

Read the is-not patent carefully and figure out what they are really patenting.

a)I am not within the US, so I really don't give a monkeys; my philospohical objection is the principle of this type of patent, which only has a purpose as a 'weapon'.  Were the EU to introduce software patents (something being debated but IIRC consistently rebutted), then it would become my direct concern.
b)The patent is clearly indicating a number of technical methods which are easily proveable as prior art; especially the memory comparison.  It's pretty basic and obvious to anyone with the slightest experience of any programming; especially the operand description.
c) I believe Real Software (not RealMedia as I erroneously said earlier) are already challenging the patent as they see it as an attempt to disrupt their RealBasic compiler/IDE software.  Also the patent specifically mentions Java/Swing as an environment (for the memory comparison part), and Sun wouldn't exactly be shy of contesting it (they'd probably relish it.......).  So there is scarcely any need for my individual challenge.  Were I even in the US, of course.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Also the patent specifically mentions Java/Swing as an environment (for the memory comparison part), and Sun wouldn't exactly be shy of contesting it (they'd probably relish it.......).  

If you'd come out of your last court case with MS billions richer you probably would too

[Osiri]

Okay but those are the big guys.  You have been complaing that the little guy cannot win against Microsoft.

What you are saying is whatever the big corporations work out is what is going to happen even if you could do something about it.  

I am making a point.  You have complained about it but you don't even really care to do anything but sit back and watch and critique.  

Further, as a Scot, it does affect you.  If this patent made it through, any corp you work for cannot come to the US and sell anything that is patented.  Is that enough effect?

In the case of a truly valid patent it could hurt your employer quite a bit.

[karajorma]

It would hurt American software more and when their entire market fell apart we Brits could claim back the computer market for the first time since WWII when we had the only one in existance

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Osiri
Okay but those are the big guys.  You have been complaing that the little guy cannot win against Microsoft.

What you are saying is whatever the big corporations work out is what is going to happen even if you could do something about it.  

I am making a point.  You have complained about it but you don't even really care to do anything but sit back and watch and critique.  

Further, as a Scot, it does affect you.  If this patent made it through, any corp you work for cannot come to the US and sell anything that is patented.  Is that enough effect?

In the case of a truly valid patent it could hurt your employer quite a bit.

You're right; yes, i have complained.  But this is something which I do not have the time to do anything about.  It is not a responsibility I am prepared to take at the moment, because i have far more important other things. I have a finite amount of time, and a finite amount of priorities, and this doesn't fit in with them.  

Moreso, my issue is not with this specific patent but the system which allowed it; if i was to begin waging a one man crusade against spurious patents, I'd have to focus on the broad scope.  But there are many organisations who already focus upon that issue.

now, i'm not overly concerned about the US market.  Because there are 2 likely career paths for me.  One is academia - the less likely in the near future - and the other is commerical programming.  I've tried self employment, and i didn't like it .  So in either of those cases, were i to even be developing something aimed at the US, then I would be within a support structure that would provide local (to me) support and funding for addressing the immediate issues.

Again, this is a concern for me, but it's not a priority.

Originally posted by karajorma


If you'd come out of your last court case with MS billions richer you probably would too

I met the guy (from Sun) who organised the settlement for that, IIRC (or 'a' settlement; depends which one you mean, I guess).  He was taking a place on the board of somewhere I was contracted to.  

Told a story of a meeting at the Sun HQ one weekend to arrange the settlement; they'd be walking down the corridors, and every now and then there'd be somebody in working weekends..... who'd turn round and stare in shock at Bill Gates & Steve Balmer walking past them with their boss.

Quite a nice guy.  Seemed to really hate Carly Fiorena (or whatever her name was - ex boss of HP), though.