24 Aug
24 Aug
5:55 a.m.
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:23:03 -0400
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
I really think that worrying about patents is a waste of time.
In addition, considering that knowingly infringing on a patent
usually carries a larger penalty than unknowingly infringing,
I'd really prefer not to know :-).
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long
plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men
die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
12:18 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 05:39:20PM +1000, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:23:03 -0400
Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com> wrote:
I really think that worrying about patents is a waste of time.
In addition, considering that knowingly infringing on a patent
usually carries a larger penalty than unknowingly infringing,
I'd really prefer not to know :-).
No patents on that page anyway :-)
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
1:26 p.m.
On Tuesday 24 August 2004 03:23, Paul Davis wrote:
No need to worry about this at the moment. Patent pending gives protection
only for a period of 1 to 3 years if the patent applied for is renewed for
the maximum period. It means that the methods used cannot be examined until
and if Full patent is applied for. Searches then have to be carried out
before full patent can be granted.
I have been experimenting with psychoacoustic mehods and enhancement in both
hardware and software for the last 20 years and there already is quite a lot
of information in the Public Domain. Do the new patent laws allow somebody to
patent methods that are already in the public domain???
Jennifer Dillon member of the p1639 Working Group.
7:28 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 11:09, Jennifer Dillon wrote:
I have been experimenting with psychoacoustic mehods
and enhancement in both
hardware and software for the last 20 years and there already is quite a lot
of information in the Public Domain. Do the new patent laws allow somebody to
patent methods that are already in the public domain???
Technically no. This would be prior art. Knowingly filing a patent on
prior art would be illegal, however, Miro$oft seems to keep filing and
getting patents (and, hopefully, getting them shot down) on things that
had prior art. I guess they don't "knowingly" do it ;-)
Jan
7:54 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:09:37 +0000
Jennifer Dillon <dmidi(a)l4l.ie> wrote:
Do the new patent laws allow somebody to
patent methods that are already in the public domain???
Currently the the USPTO is allowing just about anything to
be patented and the PTO simply doesn't have the manpower to
do proper prior art searches. This effectively means that
something already in the public domain could end up being
patented by someone.
However, if prior art existsm the patent can be challenged
and overturned.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Fundamentalist : Someone who is colour blind and yet wants everyone
else to see the world with the same lack of colour.
25 Aug
25 Aug
6:18 p.m.
>>>> "Erik" == Erik de Castro
Lopo <erikd-lad(a)mega-nerd.com> writes:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:09:37 +0000
Jennifer Dillon <dmidi(a)l4l.ie> wrote:
> Do the new patent laws allow somebody to patent
methods that
> are already in the public domain???
Currently the the USPTO is allowing just about
anything to be
patented and the PTO simply doesn't have the manpower to do
proper prior art searches. This effectively means that something
already in the public domain could end up being patented by
someone.
However, if prior art existsm the patent can be
challenged and
overturned.
Only if you have enough money and time to afford to do that.
Microsoft (and IBM and a ton of other big companies, for the record)
have it. I don't - and I don't know how many members of the LAD list
do.
From a purely theroretical point of view, almost
99% [0] of the
software patents that have been granted in the US and in the EU
[1]
are not dangerous, because they obviously fail the `priort art' and/or
on the `innovative' checks.
Actually going from theory to practice when confronted with a
multinationall behemoth can be, let's say, "non-trivial".
Sorry for the OT rambling.
Bye,
--
Andrea Glorioso sama(a)miu-ft.org +39 333 820 5723
.:: Media Innovation Unit - Firenze Tecnologia ::.
Conquering the world for fun and profit
[0] No, I didn't check all of them. That's a metaphorical number (you
thought imaginary numbers were enough, didn't you?)
[1] Yes, software patents are granted in the EU even though, as of
today, it's not legal to do it.
8:09 p.m.
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:02:53 +0200
Andrea Glorioso <sama(a)miu-ft.org> wrote:
Only if you have enough money and time to
afford to do that.
Exactly. However, the existance of a large number of patents has a
chilling effect on innovation, exactly the opposite of what patents
are supposed to achieve.
Personally, I hope microsoft and all the other patent happy bozos
end up overwhelming the USPTO so that the whole thing collapses
under its own weight.
Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo nospam(a)mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would
all the calculators go?" -- Kryten, Red Dwarf
7469
days inactive
7471
days old
linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Andrea Glorioso -
Erik de Castro Lopo -
Jan Depner -
Jennifer Dillon -
Paul Davis -
Paul Winkler