Breakpoints Patented
-
Thanks for the opportunity for dialog. I'm not quite sure how you heard what I said to conclude that I support this patent. This was my thought process: There are so many people patenting so many pieces of software, that I became afraid that I might infringe some obscure patent purely by accident. If I come up with my own fairly clever code construction, how can I be sure that I'm not in hot water even though I "invented" it independently? That's what I meant. I apologize for any personal affront I may have caused earlier, but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property. If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. I think the subject can be discussed without animosity. Considering that copyright laws are federal laws, copyright infringement already is a federal offense. :)
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
DRM isn't the answer to piracy... protecting one's content and just charging for the same song over and over everytime you decide to change your system of protection are completely different things!! Too many competing DRM's, too many reason's why DRM is not good for the consumer. Copyright infringement isn't piracy, copyright infringement is copyright infringement!! Piracy is when you seek financial gain from it... Copyright infringment can't be stopped now, it's too widely accepted. The music industry has two choices... move to a subscription/music-tax model for music (DRM free btw) and charge for value added products like CD's. The second choice is to sell music like they do now but DRM free and at resonable cost... because if they all accept one DRM model, I guaranty it will be broken within a year and they will be back to square one! As for software patents, I'm in Europe and luckily we haven't been silly enough to introduce them here.... yet! Let's hope they stay smart and keep them out. I'm not sure if I can be sued in Europe from a US held patent though?! :confused:
-
Thanks for the opportunity for dialog. I'm not quite sure how you heard what I said to conclude that I support this patent. This was my thought process: There are so many people patenting so many pieces of software, that I became afraid that I might infringe some obscure patent purely by accident. If I come up with my own fairly clever code construction, how can I be sure that I'm not in hot water even though I "invented" it independently? That's what I meant. I apologize for any personal affront I may have caused earlier, but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property. If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. I think the subject can be discussed without animosity. Considering that copyright laws are federal laws, copyright infringement already is a federal offense. :)
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
Richie308 wrote:
but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property
Sure, but DRM won't help with that. If I can see it or hear it, I can copy it. It's as simple as that. All DRM does is increasing the price of the product for the people who actually pays. And then give them an inferior product that might not play in all their players, and they can't copy to their next computer. Ever since music was first delivered as recordings, it has been legal to make copies for family and close friends. And after some number of years, the recording will be free to use by the public. That's how the laws have been made. DRM is therefore also an attempt at stopping legal copying. IOW (if we limit this to the US, as you apparently are from that country, but other countries might have laws with similar effect, my country, Norway, has), DRM and DMCA prevents legal use and legal copying of copyrighted material. While the people already breaking laws (unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material) won't be affected. So, why is DRM a good thing? M.
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
This is why the 'first to file' approach of the US patent office is wrong, it should follow the 'prior art' approach.
-
Mike Dimmick wrote:
I don't see that being a million miles away from what all symbolic debuggers have ever done
Also sounds reasonably close to a number of dynamic linking / thunking / patching techniques, although of course with a different purpose. And conceptually close to what happens in various script debuggers. I need to patent the phrase "ludicrous waste of time", and then sue everyone who bothers to read the filing...
----
It appears that everybody is under the impression that I approve of the documentation. You probably also blame Ken Burns for supporting slavery.
--Raymond Chen on MSDN
Actually, I think you would copyright that phrase, rather than patent it. After all, it was invented a long time ago (probably by Ook-ook's best friend, when Ook-ook was inventing the wheel).
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This is why the 'first to file' approach of the US patent office is wrong, it should follow the 'prior art' approach.
From my (admittedly miniscule) understanding, the 'first to file' rule grants a patent, but demonstrating prior art is the first line of defense when responding to a patent infringement claim.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
This is why the 'first to file' approach of the US patent office is wrong, it should follow the 'prior art' approach.
But what about 'simultaneous art'? Surely the fact that you independently came up with the same, or similar, solution should be a defence to infringing on the patent (indeed it would prove that the patent was in fact obvious to one skilled in the art)? This would remove the unintentional infringement part, leaving only wilful infringement - you read the patent and went ahead and used the patented feature anyway, without negotiating a royalty payment with the patent holder. The patent is supposed to reward the inventor for their invention being reused, but it's now used to harm people who've already expended hard work, time and money researching the same problem. It's meant to give people a leg up in producing their own solutions, but it's used to cut their legs from under them. I'd like to take it further and suggest that the patent holder have to prove that the infringement was knowing and deliberate, but I realise that it would be hard to prove either way.
Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Actually, I think you would copyright that phrase, rather than patent it. After all, it was invented a long time ago (probably by Ook-ook's best friend, when Ook-ook was inventing the wheel).
Software Zen:
delete this; -
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Wonder if it would hold up in court? Its like patenting a hammer. You might be able to do it but you'd get your brains beat out in court. BTW here is the link to the USPTO version. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=136163.APN.&OS=APN/136163&RS=APN/136163[^] The number listed is the USPTO application number.
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Notice that this application was submitted to the US Patent Office in 2002 and no patent has issued. (You can search it at www.uspto.gov) Perhaps you're not the only one who found it ridiculous.
-
Am I the only one who finds stuff like this[^] a bit frustrating?
My Blog A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. - -Lazarus Long
Holy crap! That's a blatant case of infringement of my original patent on debugging (circa 1885): "A process by which defects are removed from the physical implementation of an algorithm, by ripping the device to shreds, pointing fingers at the customer for not identifying all requirements up front, and when all else fails, blaming the compiler." US Patent 31,415,926,535 Ravi Bhavnani, Institute of Fundamental Ham Sandwich Research /ravi
This is your brain on Celcius Home | Music | Articles | Freeware | Trips ravib(at)ravib(dot)com
-
Thanks for the opportunity for dialog. I'm not quite sure how you heard what I said to conclude that I support this patent. This was my thought process: There are so many people patenting so many pieces of software, that I became afraid that I might infringe some obscure patent purely by accident. If I come up with my own fairly clever code construction, how can I be sure that I'm not in hot water even though I "invented" it independently? That's what I meant. I apologize for any personal affront I may have caused earlier, but regarding DRM, I believe that content owners have a fair right to try to protect their property. If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. I think the subject can be discussed without animosity. Considering that copyright laws are federal laws, copyright infringement already is a federal offense. :)
-------------------------------- "All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing" -- Edmund Burke
> If there is a better way to stop piracy, other than DRM, then don't keep it a secret, let's hear about it. DRM isn't only to stop piracy, it's to control what format and player we use the media on. The multitude of manufacturing industries don't seem to have a problem with the race to the bottom, so why should the media companies? If the prices of media were more reasonable than the historical eye-gouging that takes place (e.g. CD, DVD pricing) then there would be less piracy (e.g. ITunes) Technology is out-pacing business models, so affected businesses have to innovate or die. Unfortunately the innovation is heading in the wrong direction (DRM). Disruptive technologies are not going to disappear.
-
DRM isn't the answer to piracy... protecting one's content and just charging for the same song over and over everytime you decide to change your system of protection are completely different things!! Too many competing DRM's, too many reason's why DRM is not good for the consumer. Copyright infringement isn't piracy, copyright infringement is copyright infringement!! Piracy is when you seek financial gain from it... Copyright infringment can't be stopped now, it's too widely accepted. The music industry has two choices... move to a subscription/music-tax model for music (DRM free btw) and charge for value added products like CD's. The second choice is to sell music like they do now but DRM free and at resonable cost... because if they all accept one DRM model, I guaranty it will be broken within a year and they will be back to square one! As for software patents, I'm in Europe and luckily we haven't been silly enough to introduce them here.... yet! Let's hope they stay smart and keep them out. I'm not sure if I can be sued in Europe from a US held patent though?! :confused:
atilaw wrote:
Copyright infringement isn't piracy, copyright infringement is copyright infringement!! Piracy is when you seek financial gain from it...
But if you haven't paid for it then you have obtained a financial gain from it! Back on topic... it is an absurd patent.
