On Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:04:53 +
Richard Dobson richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I can't put a lot of time into this reply, too much else to do. But I
Understood. Me too, just a few days off for hellraising and
then back to the grind too. Appreciate your banter on this Richard.
On Mon, 07 Feb 2011 02:29:29 +
Richard Dobson richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On 06/02/2011 18:53, Andy Farnell wrote:
Since there is nothing to divide the line between this virtual device
The DX7 is an automaton. But in principle it can be modeled by a UTM.
That does not mean
Off the top of my head (no guarantee I'm recalling correctly--I'll leave it to
others to fill in details ;-) :
NED licensed Yamaha's patents for the Synclavier.
Casio used a slightly different technique (phase distortion synthesis).
Yamaha did sue Casio--I think maybe Yamaha eventually won or
On 07/02/2011 20:54, Andy Farnell wrote:
..
In this respect I cite the often-quoted definition of an engineer:
someone who can build for two bucks what anyone can build for
three.
That's one pretty narrow definition of an engineer, and a little
uncharitable. Sure you can get those kind of
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 21:23:52 +
Richard Dobson richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
On 31/01/2011 12:53, Andy Farnell wrote:
Er, they aren't, and never have been.
Hey Richard,
Sure they aren't allowed. But they de facto _have_ _been_
allowed, and that's why we're having this discussion.
Hi Andy
Andy Farnell wrote:
AXIOM: Ideas should not be patentable. Period.
Do I need to explain this?
Sorry, you've lost me a bit here. Pehaps you do need to explain it.. see if
I'm twisting your words below or if you find that I'm addressing your
position (of course I don't expect you to
I am not completely against patents per se.
As far I understand things, at least in US Patent Law is
that there is no formal peer review process.
For the most part, the only time you see an application is
after a patent is granted. At that point its largely too late.
If you have a patent,
Hi Andy
Are you suggesting by stating the above axiom that algorithms are
_simply_
ideas and that for this reason alone they shouldn't be patentable?
Yes I am, you've got it.
An algorithm is unsufficiently concrete to deserve a patent, it is an
abstraction, a generalisation.
Ok...
An
On 31/01/2011, Ross Bencina rossb-li...@audiomulch.com wrote:
Scenario: I invest 1000s of person-years devising a completely original
ultra-fast zero-latency convolution algorithm.
Might I humbly suggest that the life extension technology which would
enable you to take thousands of person-years
On 31/01/2011 12:53, Andy Farnell wrote:
..
AXIOM: Ideas should not be patentable. Period.
Er, they aren't, and never have been.
Any patent has to describe a ~device~ - a machine, a thing that can be
built - hence the ubiquitous term preferred embodiment. If an
invention cannot be expressed
Hi Andy
I wish I were worthy of quoting Blaise Pascal here, but instead I will just
apologise for the rant...
I think it has a bearing on all of us too. And thus you lure
me in. But if people complain that this is getting boring,
off-topic or ill-natured then let's quit it.
(Subject
11 matches
Mail list logo
