Re: [opensuse] The Leopard Shows its Spots
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/b12cfb65ca4faebc3e3aac17838e8f8d.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Jerry, I am going to assume you didn't mean to reply to me directly (since we don't cotton to that 'round these parts) and quote your reply back to the list. On Monday 14 May 2007 12:25, Jerry Houston wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
It's not well reasoned, though, is it? First of all, the claim is that patents were infringed upon, not that source code was stolen. Patents describe concepts. Code is a reduction to practice. Bugs are introduced in the reduction to practice, while they're not an aspect of the essential concept.
Patents are _supposed_ to be based on *processes*.
There are process patents. There are device patents. And now there are software patents. Like it or not, and I most certainly do not, it's currently the law here (the U.S.) and elsewhere, and until that's changed, we're stuck in the morasse they create.
Much of what's been patented in recent years is based on concepts, which is part of the problem.
That's not the problem. Everything that works is based on a concept, after all. Even when you don't understand the principle of operation (rare or non-existent in software, I'd say), those principles exist. No, The problem is that patents are being granted for algorithms (many of them long part of common practice and common knowledge among software practitioners), loosely defined and vague "business processes" and such breathtaking innovations as "one-click shopping." Randall Schulz -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/ba86f283d614d2cd9b6116140eaddded.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Jerry,
I am going to assume you didn't mean to reply to me directly (since we don't cotton to that 'round these parts) and quote your reply back to the list.
On Monday 14 May 2007 12:25, Jerry Houston wrote:
Randall R Schulz wrote:
It's not well reasoned, though, is it? First of all, the claim is that patents were infringed upon, not that source code was stolen. Patents describe concepts. Code is a reduction to practice. Bugs are introduced in the reduction to practice, while they're not an aspect of the essential concept.
Patents are _supposed_ to be based on *processes*.
There are process patents. There are device patents.
And now there are software patents. Like it or not, and I most certainly do not, it's currently the law here (the U.S.) and elsewhere, and until that's changed, we're stuck in the morasse they create.
And MS claims are of course patent nonsense. ;-) -- Use OpenOffice.org <http://www.openoffice.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
James Knott
-
Randall R Schulz