Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.org.eff.talk:9670 misc.int-property:735 comp.unix.bsd:7293
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Patents: What they are. What they aren't. Other factors.
Message-ID: <id.SSJU.KXL@ferranti.com>
Date: 30 Oct 92 19:18:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: ferranti.id.SSJU.KXL
References: <1992Oct23.204711.17987@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <id.ZIFU.X4D@ferranti.com> <1992Oct27.172831.22782@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 61
In article <1992Oct27.172831.22782@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@icarus.weber.edu writes:
> In article <id.ZIFU.X4D@ferranti.com> peter@ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct23.204711.17987@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
> >> By "software patents" I meant "patents on software", not some new form of
> >> patent.
> >Right. A new form of patent.
> OK, "process patents" involving software; like Diamond vs. Diehr.
NO. Diamond vs. Diehr *isn't* a typical example of the sort of patent that
I've been talking about.
In any case, the Kodak Photo-CD patents (which may or may not be a good
example: would someone care to look them up) may be a nicer test case for
this sort of thing. Shall we adjourn until these Photo-CD shenanigans are
shaken out a bit?
> >I don't know. The only methods currently in use are hardware that implements
> >virtual bitmaps, like on the Amiga, or saving and restoring the underlying
> >bitmap. Both of these have reasons for use (higher performance, more
> >versatility) that have nothing to do with XOR, and wer developed at around
> >the same time.
> If you are talking about "Blitter Objects" (BOb's), then I think you have
> missed one important one, which is signal mixing -- THe Amiga supports this
> too, but they're called "Sprites". Most of the X terminals I'm familiar
> with use signal mixing.
That's what I'm referring to as virtual bitmaps.
> >> How many methods of updating a previously occluded window have come from
> >> not wanting to license the backing store patent?
> >I don't know of any that don't predate Pike's paper.
> The point I was trying to make here was that the inability to reuse existing
> technology promotes the developement of new technology.
Yes, I know. Does it produce *better* technology, or kludges like Watt's
sun and planet gear arrangement. I suspect the latter, and so far you haven't
come up with a counterexample. Innovation isn't the goal, progress is.
> Nothing in the patent system represents as large an obstacle to technology
> reuse in the software industry, the main "anti patent" platform, as a
> copyright...
Not at all. I can implement an interface myself without falling afoul of
a copyright. there is no contamination defense in patents.
> I think the fact that the software industry has been fighting copyrights
> with new innovation not covered in previous copyright is the reason the
> software industry is so vital (in the sense of "being alive") today.
Copyrights don't protect ideas (innovation, whatever), so this is pretty much
a complete non-sequiter.
--
% Peter da Silva % 77487-5012 % +1 713 274 5180 % Har du kramat din varg idag?
/C{setlinecap}def/L{lineto}def/M{moveto}def/H{newpath 0 C 0 19 M 0 25 L 4 21 L
0 16 M 5 16 L 8 13 L 4 13 L 1 16 L 8 13 M 8 8 L stroke 2 C 10 6 M 8 8 L 10 8 L
stroke}def/T{translate}def 72 72 T 24 24 scale H 20 0 T -1 1 scale H showpage