Stefaan A Eeckels wrote: > Of course, a device that peforms a particular function, like a > vocorder, can be patented even if it uses a DSP chip and software. You > patent the complete device, not its components.
That's a clever suggestion :) Patent a complete device e.g. cell phone, HDTV...Boeing 747... No matter that those "devices" are combinations of hundreds, if not thousands, of patented technologies developed over decades... > Unless the patent offices manage to understand how writing software > works, we're better off with copyright protection. > My dear little friend... I can assure you that the USPTO has enough people who understand software, they just need to spend more time on each application. The EPO is already doing a great job as far as "software patents" are concerned. > Most programmers don't write software like poems. It's written much > like one would "write" mathematical formulae. Oh yeah, just like mathematical formulas... When was the last time that you wrote a "mathematical formula" ? High school calculus ? > And quite clearly, we > would not have seen much progress in mathematics if patents would have > been granted on Newton-Raphson or FFTs. > Oh yeah, a patent on a fast practical method of computing well-known Fourier transform would have a catastrophic impact on the progress of the entire field of mathematics. Your logic is flawless... > One of the problems is that a lot of people discoursing on software > patents don't know what software is. > This is so evident from your comments. Why don't you go and take some elementary CS and EE classes ? > -- > Stefaan A Eeckels > -- > Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules: > The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of > the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
