I oppose patent trolls and trivial patents. Beyond that I think it's a bit
more murky. My a basic rule of thumb would be: If I can think of a
mathematical or algorithmic solution to some random problem in my field in
less than a month I don't expect that solution to be patented or patentable.
I
I'd like to see if "non profit" applies to underdevelopped countries that
can't get access to medicine they can't afford nor legally copy it. Maybe
"progress" doesn't mean progress for everyone.
& I'm not even talking about patents on GMO or on your own DNA..
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM,
On Jan 28, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Nigel Redmon wrote:
I've been on a number of patent cases (as software expert, sometimes
electronics), big players, on both sides...
First, patents are important, and help progress. Non-obvious
advances often come from expensive and lengthy research. Imagine a
I've been on a number of patent cases (as software expert, sometimes
electronics), big players, on both sides...
First, patents are important, and help progress. Non-obvious advances often
come from expensive and lengthy research. Imagine a situation where company A
invests in research, and mak
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Andy Farnell
wrote:
> More: By publishing you make the advance unpatentable. Therefore
> a patent can _only_ be interpreted (in a modern context) as a
> desire to inhibit progress.
I'm not committed to this view, but I'd be interested to hear your response...
I wo
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Victor Lazzarini
wrote:
> I would have thought that the whole point of a patent is to make money. A
> scientific paper, IMHO, is the way to move the field forward.
I couldn't help but chuckle a bit when I saw the signature of the
originator of this thread.
If And
Plus it's lack of humility to assume to be the first to have thought of
something. Whatever we come up with, usually it has already been invented,
possibly even centuries ago as a theory (& sometimes at the wrong time & no
one paid attention / found it a proper use). But it's pretty rare to
act
+1
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:26, Andy Farnell wrote:
As a scientist, teacher and human being I find I'm morally
obliged to oppose such madness.
Andy
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 18:06:40 +
Victor Lazzarini wrote:
> A scientific paper, IMHO, is the way to move the field forward.
More: By publishing you make the advance unpatentable. Therefore
a patent can _only_ be interpreted (in a modern context) as a
desire to inhibit progress.
As such it is a
In principle a patent protects the investment that a company makes in order to
develop a new technology; companies are unlikely to invest large amounts on
research if their ideas are going to be copied and their product beaten to
market by an opportunistic competitor.
In practice, as we all kno
I would have thought that the whole point of a patent is to make money. A
scientific paper, IMHO, is the way to move the field forward.
Victor
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:02, Dave Hoskins wrote:
Not officially of course. Officially it's a happy sing-a-long camp of
sharing inventors.
The whole
I would have thought that the whole point of a patent is to make
money. A scientific paper, IMHO, is the way to move the field forward.
Victor
On 28 Jan 2011, at 18:02, Dave Hoskins wrote:
The whole point of a Patent is to help engineers move forward, so
it's completely legitimate to take a
Dear Andreas,
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, this is a common
practice of large corporations (i.e., they use their financial
power first to pass initial examination stage and then to
prevent re-examination requests).
Regarding the mentioned company, they have even patented
companding s
All software patents are an abomination.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:55:01 -0500
"Bogac Topaktas" wrote:
> Dear Andreas,
>
> You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, this is a common
> practice of large corporations (i.e., they use their financial
> power first to pass initial examination stage and
Dear Andreas,
You are absolutely right. Unfortunately, this is a common
practice of large corporations (i.e., they use their financial
power first to pass initial examination stage and then to
prevent re-examination requests).
Regarding the mentioned company, they have even patented
companding sy
15 matches
Mail list logo
