bosson's Techdirt Profile


About bosson

bosson's Comments comment rss

  • Sep 07, 2017 @ 12:21am

    Thank You!

    Its wonderful that you got trough this b.s., so that we can continue to read your awesome reporting on things that really matter. You deserve the best.

  • Mar 30, 2017 @ 03:03am

    Tracking on swedish government offices and browsing

    Well, tracking can be a lot more personal.

    Look at Creeper, it was created in the wake of the EU Data retention directive. It tracks IP's of Swedish government offices using images for tracking on several sites as to remind government about the effects of data-retention. This could of course be combined with cookies to gather several locations of government employees and target groups specifically. Any US projects like this?

    There are several data hoarders that work in a similar fashion to source tracking and they profile employees combined with home, airport, and library IPs or other stops as daily routines. Telcos would do well here in tracking companies for direct marketing.

    Google masks the last byte of the client IP in its Ad-exchange but others don't. Even without exact IPs, the Ad-tech cookie can be bound to the ad-exchange-cookie to get direct hits by way of redirecting the tracking-image one more step once a new targeting pixel is triggered and source-matched.

    Senators must be seeing this already.

  • Dec 31, 2015 @ 04:42am

    Its not atomized thats the problem, its abstraction

    The trouble in software patents is spelled Abstract matters that cover things beyond real world application with information models - no matter scale or composition.

    Combining stuff "atoms" is often inventive and should be protected IMHO. Atoms would in real world terms combine in chemistry...

  • May 08, 2009 @ 06:16am

    "As such"

    "As such" was intended to remove those parts of the patent that are software (as such) and not all those those other things related to software. Instead, EPO has concluded that if anything else is included then its all patentable.

    Another route is using "further technical effect" that is just the same excuse to grant software patents if the problem involves something technical as a known computer.

    But the biggest trick is to say that all programming is patentable since programmers optimize between space and steps, and this is a technical consideration with regards to a computer that is of course patentable.

    Of course this is something that can be combined in infinite ways to construct new patents just taking different steps in organizing information. Its also something that every programmer does thousands of times in each program. Its here the lawyers get it wrong.

    Software is not another technology; it is written, abstract and a matter of freedom of speech for programmers.

    Patenting software is prohibiting communication in that it extends to where it is hard to separate commercial from non-commercial patent infringements in publishing. These risks work against the dissemination of innovation.