31–40 of 45 posts
Yes, this is a dupe from earlier today. I posted the damned thing by accident while learning the system in a half awake stupor. And, because I was in an half awake stupor, decided it was a good idea to share it with the world after accidentally posting it. I've been trying to get them to take it down to no avail. Failing that I've suggested better language and asked other people to suggest better language. On Monday…
IANAL, but I don't think the executive branch has the authority to do what the petition is asking. The patent office merely interprets what Congress and the courts tell it - while there is some interpretational discretion, I don't think it extends to the point of rejecting all software patents and certainly not to the point of retroactively invalidating all of them.
The US Patent Office is part of the Executive Branch, so the President certainly does have the authority to issue orders to them.
Yes, this is a dupe from earlier today. I posted the damned thing by accident while learning the system in a half awake stupor. And, because I was in an half awake stupor, decided it was a good idea to share it with the world after accidentally posting it. I've been trying to get them to take it down to no avail. Failing that I've suggested better language and asked other people to suggest better language. On Monday…
You shouldn't update the text of a petition people already signed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name a good software patent the world can't live without?
I'll quote PG himself: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is much debate over whether software patents encourage or discourage innovation. There are a lot of arguably obvious software patents (e.g. "Method to retrieve backups from the internet"). Since the USPTO only started issuing software patents in the late 1990's, some or most of these patents are predated by plenty of examples of prior art. Imagine if a movie screenwriter were suddenly able to patent the romanti…
It's not very debatable at all, actually. Plot two curves on the same graph, one showing the rate of fundamental innovations in software and computer science in general and the other showing the number of software patents issued by the USPTO. My guess is that those curves will cross sometime in the 1990s, and never approach each other again. (The trouble is that the politicians, not knowing any better, will go to the…
Correlation, causation, yada yada yada.
Why?
There is much debate over whether software patents encourage or discourage innovation. There are a lot of arguably obvious software patents (e.g. "Method to retrieve backups from the internet"). Since the USPTO only started issuing software patents in the late 1990's, some or most of these patents are predated by plenty of examples of prior art. Imagine if a movie screenwriter were suddenly able to patent the romanti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll quote PG himself: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general. Gradually our machines consist more and more of software. Things that used to be done with levers and cams and gears are now done with loops and trees and closures. There's nothing special about physical embodiments of control systems that should make them patentable, and the so…
Not at all. The people who are against software patents are simply convinced that they (software patents) stiffling innovation.
And even if you could convince me that patents in field X (say, patents for mining machinery) were (at present) holding back rather than encouraging innovation in that field, this might not be a convincing argument anyway. I think government should treat all industries equally unless there's some very compelling reason not to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't update the text of a petition people already signed.
It basically says the same thing. Just with out the grammatical mess. Most of the signatures of come from either here or reddit and I've posted the suggested update text in both places to similar reactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not very debatable at all, actually. Plot two curves on the same graph, one showing the rate of fundamental innovations in software and computer science in general and the other showing the number of software patents issued by the USPTO. My guess is that those curves will cross sometime in the 1990s, and never approach each other again. (The trouble is that the politicians, not knowing any better, will go to the…
Now let's plot the same curve "rate of fundamental innovations in software and computer science" against the popularity of the name "Tyler" for young boys. Correlation, causation, yada yada yada.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It basically says the same thing. Just with out the grammatical mess. Most of the signatures of come from either here or reddit and I've posted the suggested update text in both places to similar reactions.
I understand, but, still, the language in the first paragraph is contradictory. "The patent office's original interpretation of software as language and therefor patentable" states the original interpretation of the USPTO is that language is patentable. A petition like this should not allow the slightest amount of confusion.