I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott

On Jul 24, 8:55 pm, biject <biject.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott

The thinking here is a multiedged sword. Consider trade secrets which
would only be so when they are held secret. If something is available
for inspection and a software secret can be discovered, there would be
no trade secret. That is a hacker's dream. Hardware might be
simulated in software and for whatever reason, such software could not
be protected. If crypto could be broken and the method was generally
known, even reduced to some software package, the "hack" could not be
prevented.

On the other hand,the argument that all computers are and act alike is
bogus. These days, computers are individually identified and with
consumer choice become uniquely different or could be made so. If
systems are updated on like, computers may be selectively be made
different and the details by default be selectively out of reach of
the owner.

In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.

biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can't even make one cent from it?

Boon wrote:
biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can't even make one cent from it?

Wishful thinking
Pride
Defense (so no-one else can stop you)
Attack (in order to stop someone else)
Charity (you give it away)

"WTShaw" <lurens1 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b33f338-5eaa-4a4d-b000-de126b0f2577 at (no spam) w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com
On Jul 24, 8:55 pm, biject <biject.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

David A. Scott

The thinking here is a multiedged sword. Consider trade secrets which
would only be so when they are held secret. If something is available
for inspection and a software secret can be discovered, there would be
no trade secret. That is a hacker's dream. Hardware might be
simulated in software and for whatever reason, such software could not
be protected. If crypto could be broken and the method was generally
known, even reduced to some software package, the "hack" could not be
prevented.

On the other hand,the argument that all computers are and act alike is
bogus. These days, computers are individually identified and with
consumer choice become uniquely different or could be made so. If
systems are updated on like, computers may be selectively be made
different and the details by default be selectively out of reach of
the owner.

There is nothing top prevent the Patent Office posting the unencrypted
descriptive generic details for the public with the specific coding talent
files encrypted for protection of the complex aspects to prevent easy
rip-off spin-offs.

Boon wrote:
biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can't even make one cent from it?

... and so on.

You do not understand what the purpose of patents is. It is NOT simply a
monopoly grant. It is a tradeoff. The patentee provides a complete
description of their patent, so that anyone CAN improve on it.

The law in
exchange for that public disclosure grants a monopoly on exercising that
process,... for a fixed time. Having part of the patent be secret is a
complete betrayal of the whole purpose of patents.
 It is that tradeoff which is crucial --

Corrupt governments grant monopolies.

Whether or not the tradeoffs in patents is really worth it could be
debated. In copyright the balance has definitely shifted to the corrupt end
of the scale-- I give you money for political donations and you allow me to
gouge your fellow citizens-- especially in software. But that is another
arguement.

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
Boon wrote:
biject wrote:

In the computer world there are many patents that don't make cents.

Why apply for a patent if one can't even make one cent from it?

Wishful thinking
Pride
Defense (so no-one else can stop you)
Attack (in order to stop someone else)
Charity (you give it away)

Patents are nowadays not made to make money. They are used to defend
your company. It's not usual that company A approaches company B to
collect some money (patent submarining), now if B has patents, B will
check whether there's anything that can be applied to A's technology, so
B has to negotiate. It's a silly game, invented by patent lawyers, but
once this game has started, there's no longer a way
to get around it. You *have* to have patents for this situation, so you
get them.

So long,
Thomas

biject wrote:
 I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dyc_oFc4fVM

So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
software.

Andrew Swallow

On Jul 27, 6:58=A0am, Andrew Swallow <am.swal... at (no spam) btinternet.com> wrote:
biject wrote:
=A0I have a played the Patent game got one while working for Uncle Sam.
But I notice many
people are afraid to write code because of patents. And in the
computer world there are
many patents that don't make cents. Neither does this post but check
out u tube
you will either like it or hate it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DDyc_oFc4fVM

So if you wish to break a digit electronics patent just implement in
software.

Andrew Swallow

I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get's it; That
researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
near this concept.)

I have long been astounded at the ignorance of this group. But I'm
not so smart either -- I figured out how to represent a message in a

synchronized pseudo-random stream at the RCVE site years ago, (now
some of you are getting near that.) And I still can't find a way to
sell it effectively.

So it looks like I lose to.

Completely untrue. It is extremely difficult to "disassemble a program" to
see how it works-- simply too long and at times to complicated. Have you
ever tried disassembling a forth program for example. And software is often
lost so it cannot be disassembled.-- almost all the programs distributed on
floppies are not lost-- they are unreadable both because the floppy drives
have disappeared and because the magnetic material has degraded.

On Jul 31, 1:07 pm, Unruh <unruh-s... at (no spam) physics.ubc.ca> wrote:

Completely untrue. It is extremely difficult to "disassemble a program" to
see how it works-- simply too long and at times to complicated. Have you
ever tried disassembling a forth program for example. And software is often
lost so it cannot be disassembled.-- almost all the programs distributed on
floppies are not lost-- they are unreadable both because the floppy drives
have disappeared and because the magnetic material has degraded.

You clearly haven't cracked games, then It is relatively easy to
disassemble a program and see how certain parts of it work (you don't
bother with all of the program, since nobody cares about how the text
handling or datafile loading works, that's not part of the
invention). It is also easy to modify it. And as for "software is
often lost", that's the exception and not the rule. Floppy drives
have hardly "disappeared".

[...]
I am amazed that each of you post and not one of you get's it; That
researchers do 'work', just as a grocer or a mailman and that each are
due compensation for value performed. (One of you did manage to get
near this concept.)