Patenting the bleedin' obvious

There's a little war going on, if anyone has noticed, between Apple, defending its "Rights" on Tablet Computers and others, notably Samsung who have produced a very worthwhile competitor to the iPad. There is something similar on smart phones as well.

I lack the patience to get to the bottom of exactly where the claimed Patent infringements lie but cannot escape the suspicion that much is claimed on the basis that the one Tablet "looks like" the other or that it "behaves like" the other, rather than actual direct copying of SW code for example. Please correct me if I am wrong.

In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas. Even before Microsoft brought out their touch screen-enabled W7, with its ability to use gestures, a whole plethora of concepts for non-keyboard control of computer displays have been clear to anyone of an inquisitive bent, fuelled by SF films which allowed their characters to play with new-fangled virtual displays, manipulated at will.

Indeed, as a general remark, much of what is claimed in Patents seem to be claims on what is obvious, not truly proprietary. This is contrary to what I would expect of a Patent which is that it should be original, useful and not obvious.

I remember seeing a cartoon related to the invention of the wheel. Someone had invented a square wheel and a new inventor had produced a new wheel which was triangular, claiming it was better because it had "one less bump per revolution". Is that the sort of future Apple expect of technology, that they hold a stranglehold on the obvious so that competitors are forced down some technological cul-de-sac?

We here are the potential customers for these toys. As one such victim I do not like it when self-seeking companies attempt to protect their market share at the expense of innovation.

On the face of it Patent Law serves to protect innovators, but I wonder if it is fit-for-purpose.

"On the face of it Patent Law serves to protect innovators"

AHAHAHAHAHA...oh wait, you we're serious? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

Yes, and drugs should be legalised. Why? Look at all the rich drug dealers.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

"On the face of it Patent Law serves to protect innovators"

AHAHAHAHAHA...oh wait, you we're serious? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I was, actually, making entirely the opposite point (unless one includes innovation as ways of avoiding patents).

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

Yes, and drugs should be legalised. Why? Look at all the rich drug dealers.

Not legalized. Nationalized and distributed for free under medical prescription. Without economical value, all social problems related to drugs disappears immediately, including rich drug dealers and crime. It's a pure medical issue turned into huge business thanks to stupid morality that benefits criminals.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Not legalized. Nationalized and distributed for free under medical prescription. Without economical value, all social problems related to drugs disappears immediately, including rich drug dealers and crime. It's a pure medical issue turned into huge business thanks to stupid morality that benefits criminals.

Really? I can't believe you're so naive.

But anyway, back on topic, are you suggesting that patentable inventions be regulated and licensed by the government?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Not legalized. Nationalized and distributed for free under medical prescription. Without economical value, all social problems related to drugs disappears immediately, including rich drug dealers and crime. It's a pure medical issue turned into huge business thanks to stupid morality that benefits criminals.

Really? I can't believe you're so naive.

Really?

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

But anyway, back on topic, are you suggesting that patentable inventions be regulated and licensed by the government?

No, I'm suggesting that contrafaction should be the real engine of economy. A novel economical theory of mine that I didn't registered for obvious reasons.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

and they are so terrible at copying. You really need to see there version of the Iphone, something called 'techno' you could puke!

Originally posted by johnogaziechi:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

and they are so terrible at copying. You really need to see there version of the Iphone, something called 'techno' you could puke!

Thats because you don't know how to shop around. I use a very good tablet which is identical to the iPad for a fraction of the price running Android.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Originally posted by johnogaziechi:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

and they are so terrible at copying. You really need to see there version of the Iphone, something called 'techno' you could puke!

Thats because you don't know how to shop around. I use a very good tablet which is identical to the iPad for a fraction of the price running Android.

and whats the name?

There are many generic brands of android tablets. With some looking around you can easily find a pretty good one... I'd stick with froyo or higher versions tho.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

There are many generic brands of android tablets. With some looking around you can easily find a pretty good one... I'd stick with froyo or higher versions tho.

is it made in china... Like its a chinnese brand, that works on android?

ummmm, not sure how to answer that. possibly? keywords there being: generic, find & versions... the rest kind of falls in context. A lot of electronic goods come from the far east namely china and korea as far as I know.

This thread reminds me of that old apple commercial from the 80's where that chick throws the hammer through the screen to free the brainwashed minions of IBM. Seems apple looks to control the masses via proprietary systems and locking down the market for the specific device types. I've got nothing against apple, they do make good devices, I'm just no fan either. I read somewhere that the patient law suit against the galaxy tab had fell apart due to some photo evidence being shop'd or something? I forget where I read this crap, lol.

I personally prefer android os to ios but that's really just an opinion.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

I read somewhere that the patient law suit against the galaxy tab had fell apart due to some photo evidence being shop'd or something? I forget where I read this crap, lol.

I personally prefer android os to ios but that's really just an opinion.

I also forget where I read that but am pretty sure it was in the context of the legal action in Germany. But it was that report that made me think of this thread. Apple had apparently doctored the image image of the Galaxy tab/phone to make it look more like their product. All very silly I think, the icons were arranged in a rectangular matrix, hardly a choice that needs an inventive genius to come up with. ... hence the use of my phrase "bleedin' obvious". How else would one arrange icons? - Oh one could experiment with concentric circles, with overlapping icons like the HP Tablet, now more or less defunct, did or some other arrangement which would also be "bleedin' obvious". Apple seem to think that the form factor is some sort of Patentable thing.

Maybe I should patent the shape of my hand, it would have as much claim to originality.

I was/am interested in the Galaxy myself, mainly because of the Android Operating system which has more links to the software I use. Apple was never a strong contender for my affections and now never will be. They tie people to their odd ways and I prefer a more open source supported product. The Amazon Tablet seems to fall into a similar trap but I've yet to read up on it properly.

I've heard contradicting things about the Kindle fire (Amazon's tablet). Started out it was gonna run honeycomb but now I heard it's got gingerbread, which is fine but only proves it's under powered. Low memory hurts the andro os in multi tasking... bad. No camera or mic? really? Access to Amazon's growing app market and cloud services but 3rd party devs is most of what attracts me to android and I don't keep everything in the clouds. I read about it in passing cause a friend is an Amazon nut head and was talking about it. Not sure what "modified OS" means... If it's anything like Moto_blur (Motorola's mods to android) it's gonna bite.

Originally posted by johnogaziechi:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

and they are so terrible at copying. You really need to see there version of the Iphone, something called 'techno' you could puke!

Its the poor audio quality with weird loudness that bothers me about their product. Techno is even a more refined quality now, makes me think its not made in china anymore. But you've got to give some credit to their manufacturers, everyone has a "cellphone" now.

I didn't carry on with this thread, people not appearing to be that interested but for tidiness sake I thought I'd post the following news which may be the final chapter in this mini-saga.

Apple ordered to run Samsung 'did not copy iPad' adverts

Thx for the update.

I had wondered but never remembered to look back into this.


Further update: Kindle Fire does indeed suck.

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

You can say that again!

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

"In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas."

Thank you - it's so nice to be quoted.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

I haven't just looked at the Chinese, but at their factories and market economy as well (a critical and growing part of the total Chinese economy). Intellectual property, not only patents, have had a practically non-existent protection in China, slowly growing stronger as there is more to protect. Of course they copy from the rest of the world, but to a much larger degree they copy from each other.

This has not slowed down innovation, quite the opposite. The system is very vibrant, frantic, operating at a pace not matched anywhere else on the planet. Your only chance of survival is to innovate and copy and improve faster than the competition, and in China you will have extremely many competitors, especially if you are successful.

Things change and scale to massive market at an unprecedented pace. That is the good (?) news. Evolutionary the product mutation rate is high, but the selection rate tends to lag behind. Speed is paramount, together with good marketing an inferior product can easily outcompete a superior. You can make a quality product, but it may not necessarily be competitive.

Originally posted by johnogaziechi:

and they are so terrible at copying. You really need to see there version of the Iphone, something called 'techno' you could puke!

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Thats because you don't know how to shop around. I use a very good tablet which is identical to the iPad for a fraction of the price running Android.

Indeed. You get the products you pay for. All phones and tablets are made in China. Which of these products you get depends on which one you choose (and which one the importer knows will sell).

Copied products are called Shanzhai, or mountain village, products in Chinese, and many knockoffs (and originals) are made in village productions, though the whole operation is getting a lot more sophisticated and urban these days.

Many products are no-names, though just as often they are blatant fakes. Fakes come in three classes A, B, and C, and finally there are fakes that are there just to fool the buyer, not intended to last much beyond the point of sale. Class A fakes should preferably be made by the same factory that produces the original and should be the same quality, sometimes better. Only an expert would see the difference. Class B are inferior products, but shouldn't be (too) inferior where it counts. An unsophisticated observer would not know it is a fake. Class C is cheap trash.

Of course Class A are the desirable products, and I have come across many Class B (even Class C) products they have claimed to be Class A. They are peddling fake fakes in other words.

Because of the trials, Samsung has turned off features useful that Apple deems too "Siri like." When has displaying everything on one page consider "Siri"? Soon Apple will go after Google

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18980115

http://allthingsd.com/20120718/u-k-judge-orders-apple-to-publicly-recant-galaxy-copycat-claim/

Well in the end Apple lost me as a customer I got myself a Samsung Galaxy Note, and I am well pleased.

Typical Rebmem from Wessex behavior/behaviour.

Originally posted by jay-string:

In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas.

In otherwise you support copyright but not software patenting. That is a position not far from mine.

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by jay-string:

In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas.

In otherwise you support copyright but not software patenting. That is a position not far from mine.

I'm not a software programmer but isn't software just a rudimentary language with terms and grammatic? one can't patent a language but certainly copying a book it's a plagiarism.

P.S. I'm not certain if one can't patent a language that one has invented...

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by jay-string:

In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas.

In otherwise you support copyright but not software patenting. That is a position not far from mine.

Jay-string? Did you mean G-string?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by jay-string:

In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas.

In otherwise you support copyright but not software patenting. That is a position not far from mine.

I'm not a software programmer but isn't software just a rudimentary language with terms and grammatic? one can't patent a language but certainly copying a book it's a plagiarism.

P.S. I'm not certain if one can't patent a language that one has invented...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jax:

Originally posted by jay-string:

In my view copying code and reusing it is wrong, developing a generalised concept is not and is simply a natural progression of ideas.

In otherwise you support copyright but not software patenting. That is a position not far from mine.

I'm not a software programmer but isn't software just a rudimentary language with terms and grammatic? one can't patent a language but certainly copying a book it's a plagiarism.

P.S. I'm not certain if one can't patent a language that one has invented...

In the US there are three types of patents:

1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;

2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and

3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant.
............................
So, no, languages can't be patented.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I'm not a software programmer but isn't software just a rudimentary language with terms and grammatic? one can't patent a language but certainly copying a book it's a plagiarism.

Not quite. Software can be considered many things (is it engineering? it is art?), but the programming language is just the means for expressing it, just like any other language. One would patent a new type of cake, but copyright the recipe.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Not legalized. Nationalized and distributed for free under medical prescription. Without economical value, all social problems related to drugs disappears immediately, including rich drug dealers and crime. It's a pure medical issue turned into huge business thanks to stupid morality that benefits criminals.

Really? I can't believe you're so naive.

But anyway, back on topic, are you suggesting that patentable inventions be regulated and licensed by the government?

Under the current conditions, are there any unpatentable inventions? The direction that patenting, branding and copyrighting has taken, it implies they should all be abolished. They limit freedom of invention. Patents for all publicly distributed inventions should be a common good (not for sale), but it's better to base production of things on licences distributed based on profession.

The patenting of computer programs seems to be a bit of a con trick.

Most computer programs I've bought have small print attached which states something like "if this goes wrong then its not our fault and don't blame us for any consequences".

There is, of course a good reason for that because most (I suggest all actually) programs have bugs in them. The number of bugs will shrink up to the point that the SW is developed and released but as soon as anyone uses it other than its developers then whoosh! up jump the number of newly discovered bugs again.

Yet those same people who insist that they won't be liable for selling things that don't work still expect their software to be protected even from someone that develops it, removes the bugs and then uses that improved product instead.

It's all perfectly understandable but not without its irony.

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Originally posted by string:

The patenting of computer programs seems to be a bit of a con trick.

Most computer programs I've bought have small print attached which states something like "if this goes wrong then its not our fault and don't blame us for any consequences".

Must be the only product on earth where the vendors managed to wiggle their way out of warranty.

Originally posted by string:

There is, of course a good reason for that because most (I suggest all actually) programs have bugs in them. The number of bugs will shrink up to the point that the SW is developed and released but as soon as anyone uses it other than its developers then whoosh! up jump the number of newly discovered bugs again.

Well, of course. You can only do so much testing. Your testers get used to the program and stop making idiot's mistakes ( and good luck trying to emulate an idiot ) so ideally you'd throw them all out and replace them once a week or so. There are deadlines and Those Suits tend to think proper testing is a waste of time anyway. There is no immediate monetary benefit from developing and running things like automated regression tests so these tend to be the first to go out of the window as soon as Some Suit thinks there's some pressure ( read: always ).

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Well, the reasoning behind that is that the current (mostly american) patent system is so messed up that if they don't patent whatever they can get away with then some patent troll will do so, and then proceed to sue everyone's pants off. In other words, corporate ass-covering. Whatever happened to prior art, inventions actually having to be something new and so on, nobody seems to know.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Well, the reasoning behind that is that the current (mostly american) patent system is so messed up that if they don't patent whatever they can get away with then some patent troll

*Cough* Apple *cough*

Seriously, Apple is determined to ban all the competitors.

As it should...all those damned foreigners stomping on the vestiges of our former glory.

Oops! The ferschlurginer* iPad 2 is made in China...where the McJobers are paid $1.78 per hour.
.........................
* A neologism for you know what

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Well, the reasoning behind that is that the current (mostly american) patent system is so messed up that if they don't patent whatever they can get away with then some patent troll

*Cough* Apple *cough*

Seriously, Apple is determined to ban all the competitors.

Right, that's why there aren't any

I heard recently that Apple now owns the right to the patent process.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Well, the reasoning behind that is that the current (mostly american) patent system is so messed up that if they don't patent whatever they can get away with then some patent troll

*Cough* Apple *cough*

Seriously, Apple is determined to ban all the competitors.

Right, that's why there aren't any

Ummm Galaxy sIII is a serious competitor to the iPhone.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I heard recently that Apple now owns the right to the patent process.

Someone needs to patent the idea of patenting idiotic and obvious crap for, umm, 'legal' reasons.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Software can be considered many things (is it engineering? it is art?),

Being software just instructions to a machine, it can never be art. At the most, it can be a part of a tool (other part being the hardware that runs it) used to do art. I think that call it engineering... well, only at a wide sense of engineering, but maybe some complex piece of software can be "engineered" or even "reengineered".

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Well, the reasoning behind that is that the current (mostly american) patent system is so messed up that if they don't patent whatever they can get away with then some patent troll

*Cough* Apple *cough*

Seriously, Apple is determined to ban all the competitors.

Right, that's why there aren't any

Ummm Galaxy sIII is a serious competitor to the iPhone.

Really. Do you actually read what you 'respond' to?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Problem with software patents is that "big" companies patent just about everything from the "shape" to the actual codes. Too bad they can't patent the words displayed or they will!

Well, the reasoning behind that is that the current (mostly american) patent system is so messed up that if they don't patent whatever they can get away with then some patent troll

*Cough* Apple *cough*

Seriously, Apple is determined to ban all the competitors.

Right, that's why there aren't any

Ummm Galaxy sIII is a serious competitor to the iPhone.

Really. Do you actually read what you 'respond' to?

Umm yeah... you did say there is no "competitor" to Apple...

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Seriously, Apple is determined to ban all the competitors.

Right, that's why there aren't any

Ummm Galaxy sIII is a serious competitor to the iPhone.

Really. Do you actually read what you 'respond' to?

Umm yeah... you did say there is no "competitor" to Apple...

I give up

Mathematical methods are specifically excluded from being patentable in most or all countries, and software is just a processed collection of mathematical methods. The loophole is that software can equivalently be described as machines. You cannot patent addition, but you can patent a machine that does addition (if you ignore prior art).

Originally posted by jax:

The loophole is that software can equivalently be described as machines.

Yes... but that will mean that hardware (that is more usually identified as a machine) is, in it's essence, no different from software. But "hard" and "soft" are in no way identical concepts, they are antagonistic. Therefore the "loophole" it's an error.
Unless I'm lost in translation...

Knit one, purl two.
Softwear by image...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jax:

The loophole is that software can equivalently be described as machines.

Yes... but that will mean that hardware (that is more usually identified as a machine) is, in it's essence, no different from software. But "hard" and "soft" are in no way identical concepts, they are antagonistic. Therefore the "loophole" it's an error.
Unless I'm lost in translation...

Ever heard of FPGAs?
There's plenty of grey area between "hard" and "soft".

Software and hardware is pretty much the same thing. It is common to turn what once was software into a dedicated chip (calling it "hardware accellerated" or some such), and as Macallan implied hardware can be usually be configurable or programmable. One advance in the 20th century was the idea of an universal machine, a machine that could be configured to do any programming task. Nowadays we call that a computer (or phone or TV or printer or what have you). They can in principle run any program any other machine can run (when not hitting any physical constraints like memory or the expected lifetime of the universe). That was all the loophole the patent lawyers needed.

It is stretching the analogy a bit too far to say that in a cell DNA is the software, while the cell itself is the hardware, but it catches some of the fluidity and interchangeability of the terms, software is not truly soft, and hardware is not truly hard. (Indeed DNA Turing machines have been made, and while not yet commercially viable, mixing the stuff of life with the stuff of computing. These DNA logical components are not living though so the domains are not joined.) To compare with a religious rather than biological metaphor, software is not the "soul" of the machine in contrast to its "body", unless you belong to a religious grouping that consider soul and body to be aspects of the same.

I would like to return to an earlier theme in this thread.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Patenting it's a nonsense. Apply the concept to itself and you have no more patents. Besides, look at the Chinese, a vibrant economy because they patent? course not, because they copy.

I think a TED talk put it well.

Originally posted by Mike Rowe:

I would suggest that innovation without imitation is a complete waste of time. And nobody celebrates imitation the way "Dirty Jobs" guys know it has to be done. Your iPhone without those people making the same interface, the same circuitry, the same board, over and over? All of that? That's what makes it equally as possible as the genius that goes inside of it.

In our stories the innovator is the hero, not the imitator. But the patentable part of innovation is the easy, and pretty much obvious part. Most software patents are blatantly obvious. More often than not the patents I have encountered are the first and immediate way I would try to solve a problem, with very little thinking behind it. I have come across pieces of programming I have thought, "now this is clever!", but never yet in a software patent.

Originally posted by jax:

Software and hardware is pretty much the same thing. It is common to turn what once was software into a dedicated chip (calling it "hardware accellerated" or some such), and as Macallan implied hardware can be usually be configurable or programmable.

I find natural that people related with programming will have a certain tendency for "defending their Lady" but I keep on disagreeing.
What's the very basic thing that we can identify as a program or a software? information. Isn't the "bit" the smaller amount of information?
Now, is a machine information? certainly not. It's an object, an object that processes information in the case of computers.

The fact that a machine can be customized doesn't change nothing, it's just a characteristic of any machine, it doesn't mean that the machine is turning into the commands that operates it. There's a difference of nature between one thing and the other.
When you say that you integrate a chip that just runs what used to be software into a computer, you are just integrating a machine into another, both processing information. I suppose that you do it for more velocity of processing but the differentiation software/hardware remains.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jax:

Software and hardware is pretty much the same thing. It is common to turn what once was software into a dedicated chip (calling it "hardware accellerated" or some such), and as Macallan implied hardware can be usually be configurable or programmable.

I find natural that people related with programming will have a certain tendency for "defending their Lady" but I keep on disagreeing.

In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

What's the very basic thing that we can identify as a program or a software? information. Isn't the "bit" the smaller amount of information? Now, is a machine information? certainly not. It's an object, an object that processes information in the case of computers.

And I even gave you a link, evidently you didn't bother to read the article. It's even available in Portuguese.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

The fact that a machine can be customized doesn't change nothing, it's just a characteristic of any machine, it doesn't mean that the machine is turning into the commands that operates it. There's a difference of nature between one thing and the other.

Yet some machines do pretty much that. In fact doing that is the whole idea behind FPGAs.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

When you say that you integrate a chip that just runs what used to be software into a computer, you are just integrating a machine into another, both processing information. I suppose that you do it for more velocity of processing but the differentiation software/hardware remains.

And now you're arguing that software is a machine

Fundamentally software isn't a set of instructions for a machine, it is the machine. In the case of the electronic computer it isn't the whole machine, there are parts of the machine that is not programmable/configurable. That is the case for other universal machines as well, whether mechanical, electromechanical, optical, biological, or made of water or LEGO.

Machines are information as well. As an aside when machines lose information they run hot, much like us. But the main story is that software is (part of) a machine. Like I said a program can be considered to be a machine, it is the electrons (photons, water) passing through the logic gates. If you cut it it will bleed.

A program can also be considered a mathematical algorithm. Thus software is the algorithm and the machine to execute that algorithm. It can sometimes be useful to separate the mathematical idea from the textual representation from the machine code from the electrons passing through the machine's veins, but they are all aspects of the same software.

Without software, my PC is an expensive doorstop. Without hardware, the OS, my apps and the data that require those apps have nothing to run on. Both software and hardware come with patents, though much open-source software comes with rather loose patents.

Originally posted by jax:

Like I said a program can be considered to be a machine, it is the electrons (photons, water) passing through the logic gates.

A program is not electrons passing nowhere. It is the information required for machines having electrons (or whatever) passing logic gates. 1, open gate, O closed gate.

Originally posted by jax:

A program can also be considered a mathematical algorithm.

Yes, and a mathematical algorithm is not a machine.

Originally posted by jax:

Fundamentally software isn't a set of instructions for a machine, it is the machine.

The only possibility for that, is if you assume that, basically, machine is a lower and imperfect degree of existence for function. That will surprise me very much coming from your side, because it would imply an hierarchy between matter and spirit, but who knows... always good to be surprised.

(I have to see how thinkers - also known as philosophers, not programmers - are dealing with this subject. I'm sure that at least two opposite schools must have already emerged. Probably even a third one trying to mix the former two, that's what always happen... )

Originally posted by Macallan:

And I even gave you a link, evidently you didn't bother to read the article. It's even available in Portuguese.

Did you? where?

So Apple has won a (part) victory, but is this Protectionism dressed up in legalese?

Apple awarded $1bn in damages from Samsung in US court

Estimated deaths in the Korean War, 2,950,000, including 1139 British Service personnel.

If we'd just left the bloomin' place to the N. Koreans, no Samsung, no patent problems, and Apple would own all of us.

S. Jobs, RIP

Originally posted by string:

So Apple has won a (part) victory, but is this Protectionism dressed up in legalese?

Apple awarded $1bn in damages from Samsung in US court

Yes, it is.

My guess is that you and I will have shuffled off our mortal coils* by the time this fine is paid off.
...............
* "E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, rung down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!" Monty Python**

"For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause." Shakespeare's Hamlet
................
** the best comedy in television history by far

My wife and I devised an inhouse communications system involving two empty soup cans connected via a length of piano wire. It worked fine but we were sued by Apple.

We're back to shouting at each other unimpeded by technology.

They got in quick before the soup company got on about misuse of their items.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

We're back to shouting at each other unimpeded by technology.

Shouting? How dare you use my invention without a license! I'm suing you, sir!

Apple has set a worrisome precedent with their patent trolling case against Samsung. They are just using their success and size to bully the competition.

Originally posted by avoidz:

Apple has set a worrisome precedent with their patent trolling case against Samsung. They are just using their success and size to bully the competition.

They'll come crashing down like a ton of s**t, The big one's always do.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

They got in quick before the soup company got on about misuse of their items.

Indeed!

“To hold a patent that has changed the modern would define you as an innovator,” the commercial voice dramatizes. “To hold more than one patent of this caliber would define you as a true leader. To hold over 80,000…well, that would make you the creators of the 2012 Mercedes Benz E-Class.”

The latest Mercedes TV commercial...it outApples Apple.

The commercial views @
http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/03/20/80000-patents-is-advertised-as-mercedes-benz-e-classs-selling-point/

I've been involved in a couple of Patents, drafting text and then being told how it should be improved and having to redo it until it became near enough suitable for the Patent Expert to take over. Not that I'm any sort of expert, but I have been involved.

I was told that there were certain key legal attributes that a Patent should have, of which the following stuck in my mind.

1 The Patent claim should be correct (i.e. if a machine is proposed it should work or a process function etc.)
2 It should be of some use or potential use
3 It should be original, if it had been published before or was public knowledge then you could not patent it
4 It should not be trivial
5 It should not be obvious (hence the title of this thread)

That experience was in Canada; I don't know if that holds true for other countries or not.

One one matter - I understand that Apple claims to have patented the pinch function to enlarge images on touch screens. I don't know if that's correct but if so it is at least not clear how such a thing is patentable.

Let's think; if one was designing software to work on a touch screen and wanted to enlarge an object is that not the most obvious thing one would do?. Supposing that one was taking perspective out of a photo of a painting, would it not be the most natural thing for a human being to hold one end of the painting while stretching the other to remove the perspective and obtain a rectangular image? The concept is easy; the programming is also easy but not to be copied - I agree to that - but there are always more ways than one to programme something.

How many science fiction films have we seen where an image is manipulated in mid air by gestures and simulated rotation and stretching etc?

All bleedin' obvious IMHO.

For years Apple was a hanger-on in the world of technology.
Now they are the world's biggest company, making toys.

Originally posted by string:

4 It should not be trivial
5 It should not be obvious (hence the title of this thread)

Software patents often seem to be both.

Goodly point tt92 and I wonder if they will be as bullish as Microsoft always was.

Originally posted by string:

All bleedin' obvious IMHO.

::there is nothing humble about this man::

Language, sir!
......................................
Apple...the American giant that lives in China.

"Two years ago, 137 workers at an Apple supplier in eastern China were injured after they were ordered to use a poisonous chemical to clean iPhone screens. Within seven months last year, two explosions at iPad factories, including in Chengdu, killed four people and injured 77.
Apple is not the only electronics company doing business within a troubling supply system. Bleak working conditions have been documented at factories manufacturing products for Dell, Hewlett-Packard, I.B.M., Lenovo, Motorola, Nokia, Sony, Toshiba and others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all"

This really stands out...corporations are usually so solicitous of their employees that it's shocking when an employee is injured.

Capitalism is all about caring.

Caring? (snigger). Based on Romney-speak no doubt.