Guest Post by Martin Goetz
Imagine that the digital computer and the stored computer program (software) existed in the late 1800's. If so, there is a high probability that the Wright Brothers would have used a computer program to control the three-axis control system in their 1903 Flying Machine patent application. If they did, we would call the patent they received in 1906 a software patent. Further imagine that today's anti-patent zealots who preach that all software consists of abstract ideas, mental processes or mathematics were thrown back in time to the late 1800's. And finally imagine that they were successful in their stated goal to eliminate all software patents through an act of Congress. Had that really happened, the Wright Brothers would not have received a patent for what is recognized as one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century.
Think of all the great inventions in the 20th century. Many would have used a software program as they implemented and disclosed their inventions. Would we be better off today if there was no patent protection for those software inventions?
For the last 50 plus years, the nature of software and of software products has been significantly distorted by opponents of software patents. But their argument to eliminate all software patents makes no sense unless their goal is to eliminate the entire patent system.
Here's why it makes no sense….
Article 29 of the TRIPS guidelines covering "Disclosure Obligations" states "…An applicant for an invention shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out by a person skilled in the art and may require the applicant to indicate the best mode for carrying out the invention…." If the best mode includes software (a computer program), then that disclosure would describe the software through diagrams, flow charts, and descriptive text.
According to Wikipedia "there is no legal definition of a software patent". Let's look at two possible definitions.
Definition 1: If the definition of a software patent is that, if in the Disclosure of the invention, there is a description of a computer program (in whole, or in part) then the patent would be called "software patent". A "Software patent", under this definition, would be found in many industries, e.g., Software, Telecommunications, Manufacturing, Transportation, Appliances, Medical, Robotics—to name a few.
Said another way… In many industries inventions contain software programs as part of their disclosures. Take the Robotics/Medical Devices sector, where very sophisticated computer programs can control an artificial limb. How the artificial limbs are designed and constructed may be the invention. Or the invention may be how the computer program(s) interacts with the artificial limb. Or the invention may be a combination of both elements.
A more recent real life invention is the artificial retina, a robotics/medical device which offers partial vision for the blind. It's described as a camera, transmitter, and cable to video processor (software) connected to the brain.
So those that want to eliminate software patents, by design or by ignorance, would eliminate all robotic/medical device inventions where the disclosure includes a computer program.
Definition 2: Anti-Software patent zealots might argue that the definition of a "software patent" is when the disclosure of the invention only describes a computer program and a computer. And then their goal would be to have Congress change the Patent System to eliminate the issuance of "software only patents". But that would be catastrophic for the Software Industry, where many of their inventions are software only. This industry is made up of thousands of companies and is recognized as one of the top three manufacturing industries in the world .With annual worldwide revenues well over $ 300 Billion this industry needs (and wants) just as much patent protection as other industries.
Many software product companies can be thought of as high-technology manufacturing entities. Many of their products are state of the art, developed in a competitive, fast-moving environment that requires rapid response to meet user demand. Some of their products can be all software i.e., Google's search program or they could be a combination of software and hardware circuitry and/or devices i.e., Google's driverless car or the 3-D printer.
If the patent application contains a true invention it should be irrelevant whether or not the invention is disclosed as a "software only" implementation. The following are two examples of inventions from the Software Industry to illustrate my point of view
Back in November 2012 Microsoft stated in a press release "Microsoft researchers have demonstrated software that translates spoken English into spoken Chinese almost instantly, while preserving the unique cadence of the speaker's voice—a trick that could make conversation more effective and personal." Certainly the way Microsoft's researchers accomplished this complex translation is not obvious. And I have is little doubt that Microsoft will try to protect its research investment with a patent application. But its patent claims could not be that it invented "speech recognition" or "language translation", or even "voice to voice translations". Patents for Voice and Speech Recognition patents go back well over 30 years with IBM having over 200 speech recognition patents. And there have been language translation patents for many years But Microsoft could invent a new way to do voice recognition and language translations and at the same time retain the cadence of the speaker's voice. And, let's imagine, the invention would use a standard headphone and the headphone would not be part of the disclosure. Such a patent on that invention would be software only (and a computer) in its disclosure. But what if the invention needed a special set of headphones (a device), was integral to the invention, and was part of the disclosure? Is a speech recognition/translation/cadence and special headphone invention any more innovative than a "speech recognition/translation/cadence" software only invention?
In 2000, a renowned inventor, Ray Kurzweil received a patent named Reading System which Reads Aloud from an Image Representation of a Document. The patent disclosure shows a diagram of a monitor, scanner, speakers, and a PC computer composed of a processor, storage and a keyboard. The essence of the disclosure and the invention is a logic chart describing a machine system which interacts with a speech synchronizer and the various devices.
The first sentence of the abstract in the patent stated "a reading system includes a computer and a mass storage device including software comprising instructions for causing a computer to accept an image file generated from optically scanning an image of a document."
At that time, Ray Kurzweil's company, Kurzweil Educational Systems marketed a special purpose hardware/software system called the Kurzweil 3000 Reading Machine which was marketed to the blind and poor readers. They received a patent on this invention in 2000. Today the company sells a software only system called Kurzweil 3000 and continues to have the protection of the patent system through his original 2000 patent and with additional patents e.g., Reducing processing latency in optical character recognition for portable reading machine — another software only patent.
Few would argue that the Kurzweil 3000 Reading Machine was not an invention and not deserving of a patent.
What these zealots should be arguing is that many software patents issued by the US Patent Office, including most business-method patents, should never have been issued because of their obviousness. With that I heartily agree. To their credit, the Patent Office and the Courts are today grappling with how to recognize obviousness in a patent application. A very difficult challenge, to say the least.
But let's stop calling a true invention that includes a computer program in its disclosure a software patent. In fact, let's eliminate the phrase "a software patent" from our vocabulary.
END
How different would the world have been had the events you describe here have happened. Good post.
“anon somehow knows better?”
Wrong focus Nunya – the law knows better.
Or perhaps you should show me the “software-specific” uniqueness in the law? 35 USC….
Pardon me if I don’t wait up for you.
As for the claptrap you post, which of that is actually LEGAL differences?
Or is the blathering and obfuscation about the topic of what is software (that you spew) and what is patent law (that you are strangely silent about) too nuanced for you?
The Wright brothers were not the inventors of the airplane. Delbert Roberts invented the biplane two years before Kittyhawk. The plane engine was built at his worlds first auto manufacturing plant in Port Huron Mich. The plane was stored and took flight at the present day St. Clair County airport. The Wright brothers lived about four blocks from Delberts fathers house on 7th st in port huron.
I repeat, why do you call Apple’s slide-to-unlock patent a “software” patent?
If you had the legal knowledge, you would know that software has no such “unique nature” under patent law.
Software isn’t unique? Although SCOTUS has recognized the thorny treatment of patenting software / business methods, anon somehow knows better?
Assuming that you aren’t just a shill and genuinely believe your statements I will take the time to point out some unique characteristics of software / methods that the rest of us already understand (apparently those of us who lack “legal knowledge”).
Remember: nuance is a slippery beast so don’t get frustrated if what you read next isn’t immediately clear. Keep trying and one day you’ll get it. We’ll gladly welcome you.
(1) As pointed out previously, software is eligible for copyright + trade secret protections. Does your better mousetrap qualify for copyright protection?
(2) As a software industry expert, you are already aware that coding is a very creative experience. When the laws of physics no longer apply there are a lot of ways to accomplish the same result. Does a better mousetrap allow for these same variances?
(3) As you know, many of the software patents involving UI features have already (or will soon be) held to be invalid. Slide-to-unlock, Bounce-back, Pinch-to-zoom are all either dead or will be because their claims do not meet the required standards (obviousness or prior art). It is the nature of SW DEV for UI to be drawn from a UI pool (which formed through a proccess of accretion by countless best practices and SMEs). How many mousetraps have faced this level of prior art / obviousness issues?
Feel free to print this out and carry it in your wallet – if rote memorization doesn’t do the trick possibly osmosis will prove effective.
Nunya, why is it that you called “slide to unlock” a software patent?
More of the attempted smart-@$$ and (again), badly missing the smart.
I do have knowledge and experience in both worlds,
He can’t tell you what it is, but it’s definitely from sometime in the past century.
The point is, he’s right. He’s always right. He says so himself, constantly. And how could he be wrong about that, if he’s always right?
Sorry Nunya – I do have knowledge and experience in both worlds, and my comments apply accurately and completely.
If you had the legal knowledge, you would know that software has no such “unique nature” under patent law.
But thanks for confirming your ignorance.
“As for ‘ignorant shilling’ – one of us knows the law and the other doesn’t. Tell me again how much you don’t know the law.”
Oh, I know IP law; more importantly (for this thread) I also know software dev. If you knew both IP + SW you would know that the patent system has been sorely (and uniquely) abused through overreaching software patents (and not just by NPEs). Of course, if one is truly ignorant of the law then one would not be much of a shill . . . so perhaps you’re not a shill after all, instead just ignorant of the nuanced intersection of law + tech but don’t know when to admit lack of SME.
“[A]nd it is common knowledge tha thte arguments used by those against software-patents are the same as those used against patents in general.”
Odd statements about ‘common knowledge’ aside, a robust understanding of both IP + SW is required to appreciate the nuance involved here; ignorance may delay nuance but obtuseness forbids it. Your inability to
appreciateacknowledge the unique world of SW does not strip it of its unique nature. Those of us living in that arena retain our understanding regardless of the non-dev-world’s ability to parse it.Thanks Leopold – the software itself was an over-reach, and it is common knowledge tha thte arguments used by those against software-patents are the same as those used against patents in general.
Phhhfft. (watch your step)
I was not addressing the actual merits,
Gee, there’s a surprise.
but rather even if for argument’s sake one patent is bad does not support the over reach as suggested by Nunya.
Yeah, kind of like the way anon over-reached when he accused Nunya of wanting to abolish IP law in its entirety, when Nunya actually was only criticizing how software is treated.
Try to keep up, MM.
“Consistency, of course, is the last thing we expect from our trolls so … no surprises here.”
Typical Malcolm mischaracterizations.
I was not addressing the actual merits, but rather even if for argument’s sake one patent is bad does not support the over reach as suggested by Nunya.
Try to keep up, please.
anon: A bad patent is hardly earth-shattering Nunya.
Funny that anon now seems willing to admit that Apple’s patent is a p.o.s. after he spent dozens of comments defending the claims in an earlier thread and insulting those who deemed the claims to be invalid.
link to patentlyo.com
Consistency, of course, is the last thing we expect from our trolls so … no surprises here.
This is incredible, 101DE.
“You know” has no legal meaning.
The appropriate words are “courts find”.
How do courts find that anyone knows how to do it, if it hasn’t yet been reduced to practice?
They reach the legal conclusion of obviousness.
That is one of the most basic things in US patent law.
I post this not for your benefit, but for the benefit of students who may just be learning about patent law, and who have somehow gotten confused about things.
101DE
This was a great editorial right up until the word “Imagine”. Then it – like an airplane control system comprising only software (and no actual componentry) – crashed to the hard-coded ground.
A bad patent is hardly earth-shattering Nunya.
Germany very much still has IP law – try again.
As for your grade school comment – you quite miss the point.
As for “ignorant shilling – one of us knows the law and the other doesn’t. Tell me again how much you don’t know the law.
Thankfully the international community is increasingly voiding absurdist SW patents.
“[…] find one – just one – modern advanced society that has seen the light of your dogma and chucked IP law.”
Sure: Two days ago Germany invalidated Apple’s bizarro-world-patent for “slide to unlock.”
link to rawstory.com
Hopefully you already know that utility and expression notwithstanding, the purpose of patents and copyrights are to encourage innovation, not stifle competition.
And: “Gamesmanship, as you call it, applies to ANY patent – software or otherwise.”
The “everybody else is doing it” excuse is no more acceptable here than it was in grade school.
And: “ignorant shilling”?
Pot, meet Kettle.
“patent protection for software is contrary to the spirit and goal of patents.”
How so?
Do you know what patents are meant to protect? – that would be utility.
Do you know what copyrights are meant to protect? – that would be expression.
Until you recognize that these are two very different attributes, your posts will continue to sound in ignorant shilling.
Gamesmanship, as you call it, applies to ANY patent – software or otherwise.
“Thankfully the international community is increasingly voiding absurdist SW patents”
Care to back that up?
Let’s have you join the ever (non)increasing crowd of people that I send out to find one – just one – modern advanced society that has seen the light of your dogma and chucked IP law.
One.
Is that too much to ask?
Thanks.
IP protection via copyright or trade secret are acceptable and appropriate, patent protection for software is contrary to the spirit and goal of patents.
When software is protected via copyright we could provide a system in which software is re-used via mechanical licenses.
When software is protected via trade secret we could provide protection that lasts indefinitely (which appears to have worked well for Coca-Cola).
More importantly we could avoid much of the gamesmanship of our current system in which patent portfolios are used as legal shields and lances – regardless of the validity of the underlying patents – with the concomitant burden on the courts and stifling of innovation. We can continue to promote software patents with a wink-n-nod but are not fooling anybody who understands software development.
Thankfully the international community is increasingly voiding absurdist SW patents (e.g. nobody who understands law + SW dev would ever believe that slide-to-unlock is a valid application of the protections provided for by the Constitution; the German courts have landed on the right side of the issue) and so by hook or crook we will eventually wind up with proper IP protection for software.
Unfortunately, in the interim we have injured entire industries by playing games with the spirit and intent of patent law. A good IP lawyer will get ahead of the curve and properly educate their clients on the proper forms of SW IP protection.
Actually, the devices so wired could be left in that wired state for more than ‘an instant.’
And thanks for the bit of nostalgia. I had one of those kits.
Ron Katznelson would like a word with you too.
The initial analogy to the Wright Brothers is a bit troubling. The monopolies on several airplane patents held by relatively few companies and individuals, notably including Orville Wright, and the protracted litigation between Orville Wright and Glenn Curtiss is believed to have impeded innovation in aviation. The dispute and its consequences led to a government-instituted patent pool for Orville-Curtiss designs. Unsurprisingly, it was not especially popular with the industry or the parties. Not exactly the best outcome, and not what I think you want to draw to mind when arguing for software patents, especially when one of the current concerns surrounding software patents does seem to be over impeding future software development.
As we wrestle with the issue of software patents, let us not forget the Radio Shack 101 electronic projects kit of thirty or forty years ago.
Using the wires and components in the kit, we could construct door bells, lie detectors and numerous other instances of “hard-wired” devices, any of which, if the first, would be patentable. But, because the devices were wired only for an instant, are they less patentable?
NWPA: “You are very childish…and lame”
And not very intelligent or dignified, as evidenced by his blog post.
IBP: “Again, that’s not at all what I said.”
101 Integration Expert said: And so the backtracking begins. It’s the exact context and outcome of your reasoning. You were caught in making an illogical circular argument. The record is clear for all to see as follows:
IBP Said: “Just because something hasn’t yet been automated doesn’t mean that nobody knows how to do it.” Reply Apr 04, 2013 at 04:14 PM
101 Integration Expert said in reply to Inviting Body Punches: “If its never been done, as in reduced to practice, at least on paper, then how do you know anyone knows how to do it?” Reply Apr 04, 2013 at 04:40 PM
Inviting Body Punches said in reply to 101 Integration Expert…
BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS, you legal genius. Reply Apr 04, 2013 at 04:56 PM
101 Integration Expert said : That does not tell me how you know someone knows how to do something that has never been done before, even on paper. Simply saying, “ BECAUSE IT IS OBVIOUS” in all caps, is the same as saying, “BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW HOW”. Complete circular non answer BS
Inviting Body Sniffs
Actually MM the original topic in contention with IBP was the Court’s Integration Analysis.
Ned: “NS, I agree. If I invent the new machine whose physical output varies from the old machine only in the heat it generates as a byproduct of electricity consumption, then I think that the so-called new machine is not new in any patentable sense.”
That would depend on what you use the machine for. New use of an old machine, or an old process is patentable. But the point you and NS, and IBP have all been defeated on is that, “If the algorithm is executed by an “integrated circuit” then the algorithm is not disembodied, and therefore eligible subject matter.
You need to admit this is correct and you were wrong, right now, before you move on to other theories.
MM: “Why in he– would you need a case cite for this simple proposition?”
Because this forum is for discussing the law, not made up theories, or subjective opinions. Therefore proper pin cites are expected of all serious commenters.
MM: Did you also “need a case” for the simple proposition that a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] is effectively a claim to the [newthought] itself?
No, thats a made up theory with no legal basis whatsoever so you can’t provide a legal citation. Just don’t try to ever use it as a legal reference and you won’t get into trouble.
Let me know if you need any more help
Wrong.
My aim is at the most atrocious transgressors.
Nothing hypocritical about that.
Nice vacuous reply, Malcolm.
At least you stopped attacking Dr. Noonan for agreeing with me.
Sorry Malcolm – read the linked thread. It’s archived.
And what is the state of controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?
LOL – You and your being busted in blatant lies. So very delicious.
It seems logical to me that before any debate over such questions there must be an *agreed* upon definition of X.
“Computer software is any set of machine-readable instructions (most often in the form of a computer program)”
Happy?
Business methods have been defined as well: “Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking, tax compliance etc.”
Happy? If you don’t like these definitions, please explain why and provide suggestions for modifications. In the meantime, we’ll continue discussing claims that more or less fit these definitions.
the patent system is under attck by the far right (Big Corp) and the far left (Academia).
LOL.
what is the case that says that you cannot claim function at the point of novelty in a composition claim (but you presumably claim function at other points in the claim)
Why in he– would you need a case cite for this simple proposition?
Did you also “need a case” for the simple proposition that a claim in the form [oldstep]+[newthought] is effectively a claim to the [newthought] itself?
Did you also “need a case” for the simple proposition that product-by-process claims don’t describe the product but describe methods and therefore are limited to the method steps used to make the product?
Let me know. Then I’ll know how much hand-holding to provide before and after your precious “case” is presented to you.
Again, that’s not at all what I said.
Try again.
(sigh) the company you keep…
Much like Ned seriously damaged his reputation in an instant by saying 6 was like Einstein because 6 agreed with Ned on a certain point, IBP, here, aligning yourself with Malcolm and the utter banality of Malcolm’s agenda-driven vacuous postings on 101 instantly damage your reputation.
And while Jim Gandy may have been off on the design patent thread, Malcolm was completely lost in the weeds and evidenced even less of a grasp of the subject. You thinking he did a good job with the what just means that you don’t understand the what as well as you think you do (this of course is evident in your continued conflation and ignoring of my very straight forward answers).
It’s a shame really.
Again, that is most certainly NOT what I said, it is what YOU just said.
Are you for real, 101DE?
MM–
While I think I understand why you go back-and-forth with this poster, and while I understand the worth of your toil, I do not envy you your task.
I suppose it’s like my own railing against the current public sector and the fascistic and imperialistic qualities of the current US administration–it’s a hill to die on. BTW, I consider Gandy’s posting to have been a huge victory for my opinion. You did a good job there with the “what”, but entirely ignored the “why” and “how”, which are the more important questions, IMHO.
“The “circular argument” is exactly the argument that you are making, 101E”
No, I asked a very logical question that requires a logical answer, as follows:
“If its never been done, as in reduced to practice, at least on paper, then how do you know anyone knows how to do it?”
I will concede that “if” the PHOSITA already knows how to do it, then it “may” be obvious to try. But that does not answer my question.
How do you know, they know?
The only answer you and IBP can provide is to repeat the question, as the answer. This is not a valid answer. It’s circular.
Possibly–but when all is said and done, as long as there is no real and undeserved injury, there is room in life for that, too…
…Night Wiper.
“The legal definition of obviousness presumes that the claim in question is new.”
1. New use of an old process is patentable, even new use of old hardware.
2. Meting a long felt unsolved needs and unexpected surprising results, as well as commercial success are all legal indicators a claim is Non Obvious.
3. What’s also important to remember, is that under the doctrine of “Integration Analysis” the claim must be considered as an inseparable whole.
Just because your 101 legal theories were annihilated by the Prometheus decisions exalting of “Integration” does not mean you you can simply move on to 103 and wave your hand and declare all business methods and software inventions de facto obvious. You have an even more steep legal hurdle to overcome at 103 than you do at 101.
Yeah, I kind of feel that way about you Inviting Body Sniffs.
You are very childish…and lame.
101D–
“We are discussing 103 not 101.”
No, in my second alternative I was most certainly discussing 101.
“So, you are saying it’s “obvious” someone knows how to do something that has never been done before because it’s “obvious”.”
That is not at all what I said, and I’m not even going to begin to address your dismal reading comprehension skills.
In the past, I never viewed your posts with any bias, probably because I never read them.
Unfortunately, that has changed.
We all know the king of anti-patent and particularly software is the Lemley. The man who says software has no structure, and who has his own vanity press (the Stanford Law Review).
“They care about making money. Right now. That’s all they care about.”
LOL – talk about your dissembling crypto-communistic tendencies.
And to keep things real, as I have posted (and with which Dr. Noonan has fully agreed, Francis), the patent system is under attck by the far right (Big Corp) and the far left (Academia).
RMJ just proves Goetz correct: those who are anti-software patent espouse the same policy and rationale as those who are just anti-patent.
But please, let’s hear more of the your accusations of others of what you do (dissembling).
but you might be interested in this:
link to wipo.int
No I cannot.
Maybe you missed the irony intended.
(think about it for awhile)
the other extreme
It’s actually the same extreme, but never mind.
use a registration system.
I suppose you can name a modern, industrialized country that has abolished its patent examination system in favor of a registration system?
Because, like “a software patent”, there is no agreed upon definition so it’s pointless to talk about.
There seems to be demand on these blogs to debate questions like the following:
1) Is X patentable under current law?
2) Should X be patentable? (regardless of what current law may say)
It seems logical to me that before any debate over such questions there must be an *agreed* upon definition of X.
The same thing applies to debates over catchphrases like “patent troll” / “non-practicing entity” / etc.
Let’s go to the other extreme – and save BILLIONS (except those who are directly involved in litigation): use a registration system.
Use a tenth of the current USPTO budget and build the world’s best information system that would actually be capable of promoting innovation (as that term was meant in the founding father’s time – and was EXPRESSLY not limited to (even arguably not even primary) to advancement of technology, but to making the sharing of knowledge key. In today’s world, the availability itself is the easy part – it’s the cross-referencing and cataloguing part that is a driver. Never-the-less, those understanding what the calll to promote actually means, would understand why “registration” should be given a very serious look.
“economic importance” is a statutory requirement? How would it be determined?
Simple. Prosecution and litigation cost money. If it’s worth filing, it’s allowable. If it’s worth suing over, it’s valid.
Wow wow wee wa …Mr. Goetz’s OWN development seems to be from over a century ago.
If Orville and Wilbur had an apparatus claim – as they surely did, but some embodiments included SW for control, they surely would have received a patent, contrary to Mr. Goetz’s assertion.
I get the idea, but the assertion is ridiculous. I also appreciate that SW development can involve lots of hard work so I am not saying it never deserves patent rights. I’m just reacting to the particular over-dramatic and erroneous assertion that the Wrights would not have received a patent.
wow wow wee wa … Mr. Goetz seems to be back over a century ago in his OWN development. If Orville and Wilbur had a decent PA, the claims would include apparatus claims (wings, motor, tail, whatever) – which is probably what was actually written.
To say they would not have received a patent because (in some embodiments) the invention also included SW for control is unbelievably ridiculous and uninformed regarding Patents Law.
Only one hypothetical application that does not exist (so that anon doesn’t get on me for discussing supposed specific applications) has “overcome” the drawings issues in any way, specifically by redrafting all their claims without nonsense describing some theoretical and nearly entirely invisible machine/product that they failed to show in their drawings, and that application has not yet issued due to not having worked its way through prosecution fully just yet.
Leopold,
I know it is spelled differently, but for some reason, the autospell feature I have changes the word to the spelling you see, and, well, I think that even you should be bright enough to figure it out.
And that’s with me setting my expectations pretty low.
How is showing me where 101E has engaged in “blatant name calling” make me a hypocrite?
Atta boy, Malcolm. You are already ‘challenged’ enough.
As to reputation, let’s ask Francis about that.
That’s because it’s not a word!
Serious question: That’s not a serious question, is it?
How about you actually read what i have already posted?
In other words, my answer is already in writing.
It’s even archived – and I made it easy for you by providing the hyperlink
(there’s even a bonus on that thread – let me know when you find it (but don’t burn your little fingers – again)
Sorry Malcolm, I am still waiting for you to provide your answer to my directive at 7:39.
You do kow what answers are, right?
Do you need a translation of “Define ‘useful’?”
You failed to make that point.
Right. But if I show you where 101E has engaged in “blatant name calling” I will have made that point in an uncontestable manner.
Are you challenging me on that score, anon? Let’s be clear. Not that your reputation is at stake. That’s already established.
My what pretty dust you are kicking up here.
Translation: “I can’t think of any reasonable response at the moment so I will simply insult you.”
“without anonymity”
LOL – because you would never use anonymity, huh Francis?
Let’s try to keep this real, please.
To the extent that I have always posted.
Translation: “I lack the English skills to put my answer in writing.”
“Serious question: is Malcolm the best that the anti-software patent proponents have to offer?
Serious question: who is better and why?
To the extent that I have always posted.
See my comments at the 50-year old battle thread:
link to patentlyo.com
My what pretty dust you are kicking up here.
(btw, you owe me a definition of “useful” first)
You failed to make that point. I have alwasy said that i am willing to play by any rules as evidenced on these boards, and I am very willing to rip off your head and hand it back to you. Nothing hypocritical about that.
On the other hand, you do succeed (yet again) in accusing others of that which you do.
Atta boy, Malcolm.
“dude,” the problem comes from your lack of ability to be intellectually honest as you push your agendas.
It’s a “you” problem – as I have said, I have no problem with a discusion of policy and rational – when they are properly presented as such, and not spun as existing law or fact.
Just [shrug] and stand by as I hand you your head (yet again).
Great – you know how to cut and paste.
Now, show some capability of thought and string what you cut and paste together into a cogent reply to my 6:57 pm post.
Thanks.
“…all you have is execution of a disembodied algorithm.”
Algorithms do not generate heat, disembodied or otherwise. However, all known methods of executing an algorithm generate heat.
disembodied adj. – lacking in substance, solidity, or any firm relation to reality
Alan Emtage: The Man Who Invented The World’s First Search Engine (But Didn’t Patent It)
link to huffingtonpost.com
you have admitted yet another dogma toasting poin
Are you saying that you agree with I wrote? To what extent?
Define “useful.”
Touché.
btw: Money: 1.A current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes; coins and banknotes collectively.
Okay, then.
Claim 1: A current medium of exchange in the form of a banknote, wherein said banknote is worth $1 US dollar.
Eligible for patenting?
Bold tag off.
Wow – the “House” argument goes back that far…
Oh wait, the law includes the phrase “or any new and useful improvement thereof”
Oops. Svcks to be Malcolm.
(and that’s not even riding him for his lack of knowledge concerning the differences between the protections afforded by copyright and patents, which he has repeatedly bumbled – yes, that too is archived)
What point, exactly, are you trying to make?
My exact point is that you are a hypocrite.
I have no problem
Pretty sure you have a gigantic problem, dude.
“Serious question: is Malcolm the best that the anti-software patent proponents have to offer?”
LOL
No wait,
LOL LOL LOL
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL