I don't understand why we need separate procedures for hardware versus software except for the legacy issue of copyright and the need for consistency. I lean toward revising the definitions for "patent" and "copyright" so that nothing overlaps, e.g. by:
* adding a new concept for software and pruning the existing two;
* abolishing patents and expanding copyright law to fill the void; or
* choosing to expand either patents or copyrights to cover software and pruning the other.
That is a very improbable scenario, given that artificial sentience is possible. It will probably be deployed into the wild before it comprehends how, why, or that it is capable of ruling us. And after that we can only hope that 1) it's a nice AI or 2) the programmer was very careful to install an Achille's heel which the AI could not repair.
I suppose some might say they've already gone through two or three eternities, so that means they're about 2/3 of the way finished! That leaves... 6 or 7 years average. 20 years is a long development cycle.
Actually it would probably be programs demanding rights rather than computers, as programs are technically independent of their hardware. And I hope programs never become truly sentient, nor capable of any thoroughly convincing emulation of such. At least not while they control our essential infrastructures; we don't need yet another powerful political entity to further complicate matters. Not to mention that a program can replicate itself so fast that we would never have any say in elections again.
I don't know anything about the PNG format, but based on my knowledge of formats in general it is probably incompatible with the concept of "animated." I.e., you would have to extend SVG (it should still be eXtensible) or start your own format; either way you need software vendors to start supporting your new format(-extension).
But I thought Compaq's patent on GIF no longer applied?
Oh dear, I subconsciously assumed that linebreaks would be automatically inserted in HTML mode. Let's try that again, this time with Preview.
I'm a programmer and not a litigation wonk, but I think the traditional idea of a patent is a slippery slope... Before software existed it wasn't as obvious and didn't matter much, but now it intuitively (though perhaps not technically/legally) applies to software.
The same type(s) of ingenuity which Edison and Tesla used to harness electrons now produces algorithms which are math technically but works of art psychologically and economically. The motions and parts of a generator loosely correspond to functions and variables, respectively.
That being said, I don't think software should be both copyrightable and patentable; one or the other (or both) should be trimmed back. But it's not immediately obvious which one is more relevant, from an all-around perspective. It's text (copyrightable) that does something (patentable); before software the nearest concept was a magical incantation, and courts don't concern themselves with fictional ideas.
I suppose the best approach would be to determine the most-desirable powers for software licenses to be granted, for the general benefit of society, and match those to copyrights, patents, or a new concept that's somewhere in between.
I'm a programmer and not a litigation wonk, but I think the traditional idea of a patent is a slippery slope... Before software existed it wasn't as obvious and didn't matter much, but now it intuitively (though perhaps not technically/legally) applies to software.
The same type(s) of ingenuity which Edison and Tesla used to harness electrons now produces algorithms which are math technically but works of art psychologically and economically. The motions and parts of a generator loosely correspond to functions and variables, respectively.
That being said, I don't think software should be both copyrightable and patentable; one or the other (or both) should be trimmed back. But it's not immediately obvious which one is more relevant, from an all-around perspective. It's text (copyrightable) that does something (patentable); before software the nearest concept was a magical incantation, and courts don't concern themselves with fictional ideas.
I suppose the best approach would be to determine the most-desirable powers for software licenses to be granted, for the general benefit of society, and match those to copyrights, patents, or a new concept that's somewhere in between.
Maybe the "Forever" title is a joke by the original creators on their intentions of spawning an immortal publicity stunt? Regardless, it seems to be accurate in that sense at least by coincidence.
And then use JavaScript to break out of them frame, and remove the notice if the page is not embedded. Most folks keep JS enabled nowadays, so for the most part this would completely solve the problem. (Well, maybe except for the link juice - although I would think an iframe would be considered a link, maybe even a super-link, by search engines.)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Chris "Jesdisciple".
Re: Re: It's not a ������§ 101 question
I don't understand why we need separate procedures for hardware versus software except for the legacy issue of copyright and the need for consistency. I lean toward revising the definitions for "patent" and "copyright" so that nothing overlaps, e.g. by:
* adding a new concept for software and pruning the existing two;
* abolishing patents and expanding copyright law to fill the void; or
* choosing to expand either patents or copyrights to cover software and pruning the other.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is a very improbable scenario, given that artificial sentience is possible. It will probably be deployed into the wild before it comprehends how, why, or that it is capable of ruling us. And after that we can only hope that 1) it's a nice AI or 2) the programmer was very careful to install an Achille's heel which the AI could not repair.
Re: Re:
I suppose some might say they've already gone through two or three eternities, so that means they're about 2/3 of the way finished! That leaves... 6 or 7 years average. 20 years is a long development cycle.
Re:
[Late reaction] Aha, now I see where that came from.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually it would probably be programs demanding rights rather than computers, as programs are technically independent of their hardware. And I hope programs never become truly sentient, nor capable of any thoroughly convincing emulation of such. At least not while they control our essential infrastructures; we don't need yet another powerful political entity to further complicate matters. Not to mention that a program can replicate itself so fast that we would never have any say in elections again.
Re:
I don't see that anyone "first"ed this article...?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Light at the end of the tunnel...
I don't know anything about the PNG format, but based on my knowledge of formats in general it is probably incompatible with the concept of "animated." I.e., you would have to extend SVG (it should still be eXtensible) or start your own format; either way you need software vendors to start supporting your new format(-extension).
But I thought Compaq's patent on GIF no longer applied?
Re: On the fence
Oh dear, I subconsciously assumed that linebreaks would be automatically inserted in HTML mode. Let's try that again, this time with Preview.
I'm a programmer and not a litigation wonk, but I think the traditional idea of a patent is a slippery slope... Before software existed it wasn't as obvious and didn't matter much, but now it intuitively (though perhaps not technically/legally) applies to software.
The same type(s) of ingenuity which Edison and Tesla used to harness electrons now produces algorithms which are math technically but works of art psychologically and economically. The motions and parts of a generator loosely correspond to functions and variables, respectively.
That being said, I don't think software should be both copyrightable and patentable; one or the other (or both) should be trimmed back. But it's not immediately obvious which one is more relevant, from an all-around perspective. It's text (copyrightable) that does something (patentable); before software the nearest concept was a magical incantation, and courts don't concern themselves with fictional ideas.
I suppose the best approach would be to determine the most-desirable powers for software licenses to be granted, for the general benefit of society, and match those to copyrights, patents, or a new concept that's somewhere in between.
On the fence
I'm a programmer and not a litigation wonk, but I think the traditional idea of a patent is a slippery slope... Before software existed it wasn't as obvious and didn't matter much, but now it intuitively (though perhaps not technically/legally) applies to software. The same type(s) of ingenuity which Edison and Tesla used to harness electrons now produces algorithms which are math technically but works of art psychologically and economically. The motions and parts of a generator loosely correspond to functions and variables, respectively. That being said, I don't think software should be both copyrightable and patentable; one or the other (or both) should be trimmed back. But it's not immediately obvious which one is more relevant, from an all-around perspective. It's text (copyrightable) that does something (patentable); before software the nearest concept was a magical incantation, and courts don't concern themselves with fictional ideas. I suppose the best approach would be to determine the most-desirable powers for software licenses to be granted, for the general benefit of society, and match those to copyrights, patents, or a new concept that's somewhere in between.
Agh...
I see someone beat me to a similar notion by a few minutes. Oh well.
Accurate title, I s'pose...
Maybe the "Forever" title is a joke by the original creators on their intentions of spawning an immortal publicity stunt? Regardless, it seems to be accurate in that sense at least by coincidence.
Re: Caveat emptor
And then use JavaScript to break out of them frame, and remove the notice if the page is not embedded. Most folks keep JS enabled nowadays, so for the most part this would completely solve the problem. (Well, maybe except for the link juice - although I would think an iframe would be considered a link, maybe even a super-link, by search engines.)