Novice » Industrijska lastnina » Okrogla miza o programskih patentih
Maria ::
jype
> Patent, ki je podeljen za tako idejo pa pokriva _VSE_ uporabe te ideje, tako matematicne, kot tudi povsem prakticne.
Patent ni nikoli podeljen za idejo. Če je, lahko iztožiš škodljivo uporabo patentnega prava. Predlagam ti, da si malo prebereš osnove.
Maria
> Patent, ki je podeljen za tako idejo pa pokriva _VSE_ uporabe te ideje, tako matematicne, kot tudi povsem prakticne.
Patent ni nikoli podeljen za idejo. Če je, lahko iztožiš škodljivo uporabo patentnega prava. Predlagam ti, da si malo prebereš osnove.
Maria
Maria ::
BigWhale
> A se ti zdi smiselno, da bi poleg vsega tega kar je ze bilo povedano okrog kontra argumentov za SW patente, se jaz bluzil? In ponavljal to kar je napisal jure in se kdo drug?
Saj v resnici bluziš. Tule:
> Ce v svojih blodnjah nimate kaj pametnejsega povedati, kot 'mene pa to ne zanima' in ce resnicno nimate kaksnega pametnega argumenta ZA patente, potem bodite tiho. Resno. Ker argumentov proti patentom smo vam ze natresli polno v zadnje pol leta, letu... Pa se vseeno kar vztrajate nekateri, da je to GOOD thing.
Ko sva prišla pri dvokliku do časa dvoklika in do dejstva, da je patentirana metoda (dela) z realnimi omejitvami, se nisi več oglasil, pa bi bilo korektno za pogovor in za vse ostale. Saj razumem, to logiko je uporabljal Minmax pri zavihkih. Najprej natrese polresnice in upa, da nihče ne bo šel do konca. In ko nekdo gre do konca, utihne. Pa me ne motita ne ti ne Minmax.
Moti me logika površnosti, bleferstva in trač trača, ki je pri nas še posebej razširjena. In zaradi tega se v svetu blamiramo bolj kot bi bilo potrebno in kot si zaslužimo. Kar poglej srečanje na GZS. Vprašanja so odrazila neinformiranost, diletantizem in nevednost. Kako naj nas nekdo jemlje resno.
Maria
> A se ti zdi smiselno, da bi poleg vsega tega kar je ze bilo povedano okrog kontra argumentov za SW patente, se jaz bluzil? In ponavljal to kar je napisal jure in se kdo drug?
Saj v resnici bluziš. Tule:
> Ce v svojih blodnjah nimate kaj pametnejsega povedati, kot 'mene pa to ne zanima' in ce resnicno nimate kaksnega pametnega argumenta ZA patente, potem bodite tiho. Resno. Ker argumentov proti patentom smo vam ze natresli polno v zadnje pol leta, letu... Pa se vseeno kar vztrajate nekateri, da je to GOOD thing.
Ko sva prišla pri dvokliku do časa dvoklika in do dejstva, da je patentirana metoda (dela) z realnimi omejitvami, se nisi več oglasil, pa bi bilo korektno za pogovor in za vse ostale. Saj razumem, to logiko je uporabljal Minmax pri zavihkih. Najprej natrese polresnice in upa, da nihče ne bo šel do konca. In ko nekdo gre do konca, utihne. Pa me ne motita ne ti ne Minmax.
Moti me logika površnosti, bleferstva in trač trača, ki je pri nas še posebej razširjena. In zaradi tega se v svetu blamiramo bolj kot bi bilo potrebno in kot si zaslužimo. Kar poglej srečanje na GZS. Vprašanja so odrazila neinformiranost, diletantizem in nevednost. Kako naj nas nekdo jemlje resno.
Maria
gpg ::
Maria, s srečanjem na GZS misliš predstavitev na katero ni bil kot govornik povabljen niti eden nasprotnik trenutnega besedila direktive?
Nisem je utegnil podrobneje pregledati, a mogoče je ta razprava na malo višjem nivoju.
--
Data Processing is not a Field of Technology.
Nisem je utegnil podrobneje pregledati, a mogoče je ta razprava na malo višjem nivoju.
--
Data Processing is not a Field of Technology.
ahac ::
Patent ni nikoli podeljen za idejo. Če je, lahko iztožiš škodljivo uporabo patentnega prava. Predlagam ti, da si malo prebereš osnove.
Riiight! O čem že skoz govorimo?
Mogoče o tem, da majhne firme nimajo denarja, da bi šle na sodišče tožit MS in podobne velikane?
Če gre neka majhna (slovenska) firma v tako tožbo je to lahko njena smrt. Prvič zato, ker nima denarja.. drugič zato, ker se tožba vleče tako dolgo, da zadeva ob koncu sploh ni več aktualna.
In tako velika firma zmaga, tudi če se po par letih izkaže, da patent ni veljaven.
Slo-Tech Discord - https://discord.gg/ppCtzMW
Maria ::
ahac
V tem primeru ne tožiš MS, ampak Patentni urad oz. Državo. Če imaš dovolj argumentov, lahko prepričaš še koga (tako vseprisotno civilno družbo), ki bo v takšni sodelavi videl celo posel in olupiš odgovorne za resen denar.
Maria
V tem primeru ne tožiš MS, ampak Patentni urad oz. Državo. Če imaš dovolj argumentov, lahko prepričaš še koga (tako vseprisotno civilno družbo), ki bo v takšni sodelavi videl celo posel in olupiš odgovorne za resen denar.
Maria
Daedalus ::
Potemtakem bi morala podjetja plačevat račun za slabo delovanje patentnih uradov in slabo spisano patentno zakonodajo? Ker to praviš, Maria, s svojim odgovorom ahacu.
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world,
he is responsible for everything he does.
[J.P.Sartre]
he is responsible for everything he does.
[J.P.Sartre]
borchi ::
ok, naj spremenijo patentno zakonodajo. če se kdorkoli pritoži na podeljen patent, se patent do konca pritožbenega postopka razveljavi. stroške postopka krije država.
tako bi vnesli simetrijo v david-goljat odnos.
ja, res je, vsi bi drkali ta velike, kadar bi imeli 5 minut cajta.
nekako tako kot sedaj lahko veliki tamale.
men se zdi fer.
tako bi vnesli simetrijo v david-goljat odnos.
ja, res je, vsi bi drkali ta velike, kadar bi imeli 5 minut cajta.
nekako tako kot sedaj lahko veliki tamale.
men se zdi fer.
l'jga
jype ::
Maria:ne.
Tvoj problem je, da ne razumes: patentiran je dvojni klik. Ce preberes patentne zahtevke vidis, da dvojnega klika _NE MORES_ drugace implementirati, ker je patentirana ideja, pri kateri uporabnik dvakrat hitro pritisne miskin gumb in racunalnik to na kakrsenkoli nacin ze ugotovi. Tudi amazonov one-click je tak primer, pa Adobeovi zavihki tudi, tako da te kar pozivam na dvoboj (zdajle ne utegnem, bom pa enkrat ta teden pripravil vse patentne zahtevke teh patentov in jih razlozil, potem mi bos pa lahko dokazala, da se motim). Mimogrede: jaz sem programer, zato vem, kaj tiste reci v patentnih zahtevkih pomenijo, ceprav so zavite v ogromno pravniske packarije.
Tvoj problem je tudi, da ne razumes, da jaz lahko dvojni klik opisem na tri nacine. V cloveskem jeziku, v jeziku patentnega prava in v programskem jeziku. Idejo lahko patentiram zgolj v jeziku patentnega prava, tozim pa lahko vse tiste, ki idejo izvajajo. Edina omejitev, ki jo imam, je ta, da moram zraven v patentno prijavo napisat, da je del patenta tudi racunalnik. Ce znas dvojno klikat brez racunalnika, te seveda ne bom tozil.
V primeru, da tozis drzavo, ti drzava enostavno pove: Direktiva pravi, da je to veljaven patent, zato ker ustreza predpisom (je tehnicen po tisti neobstojeci definiciji "dodatnega tehnicnega ucinka"). Enako ti pove sodnik, ko te Microsoft tozi.
Zato se zdaj matramo, da take zakonodaje ne bi sprejeli.
Se malenkost: Matsushita (korporacija z najvec patenti na Japonskem) je tozila Ichitaro (majhnega proizvajalca programske opreme), ker je v svojem urejevalniku besedila, ki ima na Japonskem skoraj polovicni trzni delez in se dejansko dobro drzi na trgu v primerjavi s konkurencnim Microsoftovim Wordom, uporabil "slicico z vprasajem". Patentne zahtevke lahko preberes na http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/txt/jp/28... in potem poves, ce se ti zdi zakonodaja, ki omogoca tako litigacijo, smiselna.
Sodisce je zahtevalo od Ichitaro, da izdelek umakne iz prodaje, kar je odlicno vplivalo na prodajo Microsoft Worda. Cista spekulacija je, da sta se Microsoft in Matsushita zdruzili v nekaj, kar se imenuje patentni kartel oz. patent oligopoly. Super pojav za konkurencnost industrije in spodbujanje razvoja, ki ga je z obstojecim pravnim sistemom prakticno nemogoce ucinkovito preganjati.
Tvoj problem je, da ne razumes: patentiran je dvojni klik. Ce preberes patentne zahtevke vidis, da dvojnega klika _NE MORES_ drugace implementirati, ker je patentirana ideja, pri kateri uporabnik dvakrat hitro pritisne miskin gumb in racunalnik to na kakrsenkoli nacin ze ugotovi. Tudi amazonov one-click je tak primer, pa Adobeovi zavihki tudi, tako da te kar pozivam na dvoboj (zdajle ne utegnem, bom pa enkrat ta teden pripravil vse patentne zahtevke teh patentov in jih razlozil, potem mi bos pa lahko dokazala, da se motim). Mimogrede: jaz sem programer, zato vem, kaj tiste reci v patentnih zahtevkih pomenijo, ceprav so zavite v ogromno pravniske packarije.
Tvoj problem je tudi, da ne razumes, da jaz lahko dvojni klik opisem na tri nacine. V cloveskem jeziku, v jeziku patentnega prava in v programskem jeziku. Idejo lahko patentiram zgolj v jeziku patentnega prava, tozim pa lahko vse tiste, ki idejo izvajajo. Edina omejitev, ki jo imam, je ta, da moram zraven v patentno prijavo napisat, da je del patenta tudi racunalnik. Ce znas dvojno klikat brez racunalnika, te seveda ne bom tozil.
V primeru, da tozis drzavo, ti drzava enostavno pove: Direktiva pravi, da je to veljaven patent, zato ker ustreza predpisom (je tehnicen po tisti neobstojeci definiciji "dodatnega tehnicnega ucinka"). Enako ti pove sodnik, ko te Microsoft tozi.
Zato se zdaj matramo, da take zakonodaje ne bi sprejeli.
Se malenkost: Matsushita (korporacija z najvec patenti na Japonskem) je tozila Ichitaro (majhnega proizvajalca programske opreme), ker je v svojem urejevalniku besedila, ki ima na Japonskem skoraj polovicni trzni delez in se dejansko dobro drzi na trgu v primerjavi s konkurencnim Microsoftovim Wordom, uporabil "slicico z vprasajem". Patentne zahtevke lahko preberes na http://swpat.ffii.org/patents/txt/jp/28... in potem poves, ce se ti zdi zakonodaja, ki omogoca tako litigacijo, smiselna.
Sodisce je zahtevalo od Ichitaro, da izdelek umakne iz prodaje, kar je odlicno vplivalo na prodajo Microsoft Worda. Cista spekulacija je, da sta se Microsoft in Matsushita zdruzili v nekaj, kar se imenuje patentni kartel oz. patent oligopoly. Super pojav za konkurencnost industrije in spodbujanje razvoja, ki ga je z obstojecim pravnim sistemom prakticno nemogoce ucinkovito preganjati.
Daedalus ::
Maria
V tem primeru je zakonodaja dovolj jasna - se precej bol natančno ve, kdaj te lahko policist tepe. Če te pa neupravičeno - rabiš pa veliko časa in $$ da mu to dokažeš. Poglej samo kolko časa je trajalo sojenje policistu, ki je zaprl pot motorju v Velenju in ubil dva človeka. Raje ne razmišlam, kak dolgo bi trajal postopek, če bi jih "zgolj malo" polomil...
Ampak, to je še vedno dosti bolje urejeno, kot pa softverski patenti in delovanje patentnih uradov na sploh. Bi se dalo rečt, da je naključno pretepanje civilistov v tej sferi skoraj uzakonjeno. In z novo direktivno bi stvari postale še malo bolj nejasne - kar pa nam ni v interesu, ali pač?
Sem pa pričakoval direkten odgovor, ne pa izmikanja...
V tem primeru je zakonodaja dovolj jasna - se precej bol natančno ve, kdaj te lahko policist tepe. Če te pa neupravičeno - rabiš pa veliko časa in $$ da mu to dokažeš. Poglej samo kolko časa je trajalo sojenje policistu, ki je zaprl pot motorju v Velenju in ubil dva človeka. Raje ne razmišlam, kak dolgo bi trajal postopek, če bi jih "zgolj malo" polomil...
Ampak, to je še vedno dosti bolje urejeno, kot pa softverski patenti in delovanje patentnih uradov na sploh. Bi se dalo rečt, da je naključno pretepanje civilistov v tej sferi skoraj uzakonjeno. In z novo direktivno bi stvari postale še malo bolj nejasne - kar pa nam ni v interesu, ali pač?
Sem pa pričakoval direkten odgovor, ne pa izmikanja...
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world,
he is responsible for everything he does.
[J.P.Sartre]
he is responsible for everything he does.
[J.P.Sartre]
jype ::
Ce te policist neupraviceno pretepe gres na sodisce. Sodisce ugotovi, da si bil neupraviceno pretepen, in pravici je ali pa ni zadosceno.
Ce te tozi podjetje zaradi krsitve patenta, ki je veljaven softverski patent, lahko samo placas, ali pa gres past ovce. Nicesar ne mores storiti, ker imajo oni ekskluzivno pravico nad necim, kar si ti ustvaril. Ker ce jaz implementiram dvojni klik in nocem placati licence za patent, me lahko Microsoft (za zdaj le v ZDA, na Japonskem, v Veliki Britaniji in na Irskem) tozi, in tozbo bo dobil, ker je tak zakon.
Debata zdaj sploh ni, ali me lahko tozi ali ne, ampak ali si zelimo patente za abstraktne ideje in zakaj ne. Vsekakor "common position" pravi, da programske opreme ni mogoce patentirati, razen kadar nalozena v racunalnik doseze tehnicni ucinek. Na zalost je pravnik G. Aharonian ze pred casom dokazal, da imajo vse abstraktne reci tehnicni ucinek:
http://www.patenting-art.com/copyprob/t...
Vsekakor vidim eno od moznih resitev krize patentnega sistema v tem, da postanejo patentni preizkusevalci materialno odgovorni za svoje sodbe o veljavnosti patenta, ko ga podelijo. Na ta nacin bi verjetno podelili bistveno manj patentov, ki si patentnega varstva ne zasluzijo, vendar to ne resi problema z zakonodajo: ce zakon pravi, da lahko patentiram program, ki ima "dodaten tehnicni ucinek", potem ga pac lahko patentiram, pa ce se konkurenca mece na trepalnice. Ampak takega zakona nocemo (Velika vecina majhnih in srednji podjetij Evrope in velika vecina programerjev v Evropi se z mano ocitno strinja). Poleg tega se vedno ni nihce pokazal resne ekonomske studije, iz katere bi lahko zakljucili, da tak rezim kakorkoli koristi druzbi oz. spodbuja razvoj, so pa studije, ki dokazujejo nasprotno.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
Ce te tozi podjetje zaradi krsitve patenta, ki je veljaven softverski patent, lahko samo placas, ali pa gres past ovce. Nicesar ne mores storiti, ker imajo oni ekskluzivno pravico nad necim, kar si ti ustvaril. Ker ce jaz implementiram dvojni klik in nocem placati licence za patent, me lahko Microsoft (za zdaj le v ZDA, na Japonskem, v Veliki Britaniji in na Irskem) tozi, in tozbo bo dobil, ker je tak zakon.
Debata zdaj sploh ni, ali me lahko tozi ali ne, ampak ali si zelimo patente za abstraktne ideje in zakaj ne. Vsekakor "common position" pravi, da programske opreme ni mogoce patentirati, razen kadar nalozena v racunalnik doseze tehnicni ucinek. Na zalost je pravnik G. Aharonian ze pred casom dokazal, da imajo vse abstraktne reci tehnicni ucinek:
http://www.patenting-art.com/copyprob/t...
Vsekakor vidim eno od moznih resitev krize patentnega sistema v tem, da postanejo patentni preizkusevalci materialno odgovorni za svoje sodbe o veljavnosti patenta, ko ga podelijo. Na ta nacin bi verjetno podelili bistveno manj patentov, ki si patentnega varstva ne zasluzijo, vendar to ne resi problema z zakonodajo: ce zakon pravi, da lahko patentiram program, ki ima "dodaten tehnicni ucinek", potem ga pac lahko patentiram, pa ce se konkurenca mece na trepalnice. Ampak takega zakona nocemo (Velika vecina majhnih in srednji podjetij Evrope in velika vecina programerjev v Evropi se z mano ocitno strinja). Poleg tega se vedno ni nihce pokazal resne ekonomske studije, iz katere bi lahko zakljucili, da tak rezim kakorkoli koristi druzbi oz. spodbuja razvoj, so pa studije, ki dokazujejo nasprotno.
Feel free to prove me wrong.
BigWhale ::
> Ko sva prišla pri dvokliku do časa dvoklika in do dejstva, da
> je patentirana metoda (dela) z realnimi omejitvami, se nisi
> več oglasil, pa bi bilo korektno za pogovor in za vse ostale.
Najbrz ne namerno. Verjetno nekaj casa nisem pogledal teme, potem je pa izginila iz 24 urnega seznama.
Ja, pri MSjevem dvokliku so opisali, da je dvoklik in troklik narejen z ustreznim casovnim presledkom. Ampak to niti ni pomembno, ne tako zelo.
Zakaj ne? Zato, ker te MS vseeno lahko tozi, ce se jim zdi, da ti upostevas dva klika v istem casovnem intervalu za dvoklik, kot ga oni. In ce te tozijo je cisto vseeno kdo ima prav. Ti lahko prej obubozas preden se sodni proces zakljuci. Kaj mi pomaga ce bom sodni proces dobil? Za to, da ga dobim, bom moral vec dni precepet v sodni dvorani, si najet odvetnika, kdo bo medtem programiral namesto mene? Kdo bo supportiral moje stranke, ce bom jaz odsoten?
Daj razmisli malo. Sedaj mora vsak programer, ki implementira dvoklik v kako svojo napravo razmisljati v stilu: 'hmm, je ze kje kdo implementiral dvoklik? A ga je patentiral? Koliksen je njegov cas za dvoklik, bom moral narediti vsaj 5ms krajsega/daljsega? Se ti zdi, povsem normalno, da se programer, preden sploh zacne delati neko stvar sprasuje vse te stvari in se v prvi vrsti ukvarja z pregledovanjem in iskanjem butastih patentov?
Kaj pa ce grem jaz delat program za vodenje skladisca (cudno nakljucje je hotelo, da ravno to delam)? Kaj moram storiti preden zacnem delat? Pregledat, ce ni nekdo patentiral nacina zapisa v podatkovno zbirko, nacina prikaza podatkov, nacin iskanja, nacin indexiranja podatkov, morda si je kdo izmislil patent na desni klik miske in prikaz pop-up menija, ki ti z enim klikom omogoca izpis skladiscne kartice. Se kaj? Mi bos pomagala? Ker delam GPL program, bos tudi ti tako dobra in bos moja GNU odvetnica in raziskala vse patente, ki bi me lahko zadeli. Jasno, v svojem prostem casu in free of charge. No, lahko bos uporabljala moj program, pa se ne bos bala, da bo nekdo mene sel tozit, da sem ukradel njegovo intelektualno lastnino in jaz ti bom nudil dozivljenski servis za program.
Vidis, s patenti ni nic narobe, ce so postavljeni v neke smiselne okvirje. Kar pa ne bodo, ce EU sprejme direktivo v ZDA pa ze danes niso.
Tem zgornjim primerom bi se radi izognili, jih preprecili. JE veliko ceneje in lazje jih sedaj prepreciti, kot pa potem zdraviti. Vsaj meni, ker imam omejen budget in omejen cas. Ne morem zaposlit nekoga, ki bo zastopal mene na sodiscu, kaj sele, da bi najel odvetnika, ki mi bo sproti pregledoval patente. Sem preprican, da jaz hitreje novo kodo ustvarjam in moje ideje spravljam v delujoco obliko, kot lahko nekdo isce po patentih.
Temu bi se radi izognili.
> je patentirana metoda (dela) z realnimi omejitvami, se nisi
> več oglasil, pa bi bilo korektno za pogovor in za vse ostale.
Najbrz ne namerno. Verjetno nekaj casa nisem pogledal teme, potem je pa izginila iz 24 urnega seznama.
Ja, pri MSjevem dvokliku so opisali, da je dvoklik in troklik narejen z ustreznim casovnim presledkom. Ampak to niti ni pomembno, ne tako zelo.
Zakaj ne? Zato, ker te MS vseeno lahko tozi, ce se jim zdi, da ti upostevas dva klika v istem casovnem intervalu za dvoklik, kot ga oni. In ce te tozijo je cisto vseeno kdo ima prav. Ti lahko prej obubozas preden se sodni proces zakljuci. Kaj mi pomaga ce bom sodni proces dobil? Za to, da ga dobim, bom moral vec dni precepet v sodni dvorani, si najet odvetnika, kdo bo medtem programiral namesto mene? Kdo bo supportiral moje stranke, ce bom jaz odsoten?
Daj razmisli malo. Sedaj mora vsak programer, ki implementira dvoklik v kako svojo napravo razmisljati v stilu: 'hmm, je ze kje kdo implementiral dvoklik? A ga je patentiral? Koliksen je njegov cas za dvoklik, bom moral narediti vsaj 5ms krajsega/daljsega? Se ti zdi, povsem normalno, da se programer, preden sploh zacne delati neko stvar sprasuje vse te stvari in se v prvi vrsti ukvarja z pregledovanjem in iskanjem butastih patentov?
Kaj pa ce grem jaz delat program za vodenje skladisca (cudno nakljucje je hotelo, da ravno to delam)? Kaj moram storiti preden zacnem delat? Pregledat, ce ni nekdo patentiral nacina zapisa v podatkovno zbirko, nacina prikaza podatkov, nacin iskanja, nacin indexiranja podatkov, morda si je kdo izmislil patent na desni klik miske in prikaz pop-up menija, ki ti z enim klikom omogoca izpis skladiscne kartice. Se kaj? Mi bos pomagala? Ker delam GPL program, bos tudi ti tako dobra in bos moja GNU odvetnica in raziskala vse patente, ki bi me lahko zadeli. Jasno, v svojem prostem casu in free of charge. No, lahko bos uporabljala moj program, pa se ne bos bala, da bo nekdo mene sel tozit, da sem ukradel njegovo intelektualno lastnino in jaz ti bom nudil dozivljenski servis za program.
Vidis, s patenti ni nic narobe, ce so postavljeni v neke smiselne okvirje. Kar pa ne bodo, ce EU sprejme direktivo v ZDA pa ze danes niso.
Tem zgornjim primerom bi se radi izognili, jih preprecili. JE veliko ceneje in lazje jih sedaj prepreciti, kot pa potem zdraviti. Vsaj meni, ker imam omejen budget in omejen cas. Ne morem zaposlit nekoga, ki bo zastopal mene na sodiscu, kaj sele, da bi najel odvetnika, ki mi bo sproti pregledoval patente. Sem preprican, da jaz hitreje novo kodo ustvarjam in moje ideje spravljam v delujoco obliko, kot lahko nekdo isce po patentih.
Temu bi se radi izognili.
jype ::
predlog dinamične patentne zakonodaje
Poslano: 18.12.2004 09:47:03
Čezmerno prjavljanje patentov je onemogočeno oz. omejeno z dinamično postavitvijo dolžine trajanja patenta in na drugi strani s stroški prijave in vzdrževanja patenta. Microsoft ne bo mogel računati, da bo dobil za vsak patent apriori 20 let, če bo dal izdelek z izumom na trg. In želel ga do dati čimprej.
Če pa ne, pa ne bo imel izdelka => dobička, s katerim bi pokril stroške patena.
Na drugi strani pa bodo morali patentni uradi opravljati svoje delo v fazi potrditve patantibilnosti in preveritve stanja tehnike.
Maria
jype ::
Zanimivo je tudi to, da EOLAS, Acacia in Pat-rights (pa takih je vedno vec) neznansko veliko zasluzijo s svojimi izdelki, ki temeljijo na revolucionarnih odkritjih.
Npr. podjetje Pat-rights tozi Apple in zahteva 2% gross od prometa iTunes, ker se iTunes prijavi v spletno trgovino z glasbo, kar je Pat-rights patentiral. Patent zajema prijavo na omrezni servis, ki na podlagi izkazane uporabnikove identitete dovoli uporabniku uporabo dolocenih storitev. Tega seveda ni iznaslo podjetje Pat-rights niti noben od zaposlenih v tem podjetju. Ker prijavo na omrezne servise poznamo se iz casov arpaneta, je seveda absurdno, da bo Pat-rights danes tozbo zelo verjetno dobil izven sodisca, ker se Applu ne bo splacalo jit v postopek, ceprav je podjetje z miljonskimi dobicki.
Podobno kot EOLAS vs. Microsoft, kjer EOLAS trdi, da je iznasel nacin, da se programi poganjajo znotraj spletnega brskalnika. Absurdno, pa vseeno je Microsoft stalo se bolj absurdne pol miljarde dolarjev.
In kako to koristi druzbi? Hja, EOLAS ocitno da veliko na inovacije, saj so v preteklosti proizvedli kar 0 novih tehnoloskih resitev in na trg prinesli 0 reci, ki jih vsak dan uporabljamo in brez katerih si zivljenja danes ne moremo predstavljati. Tudi Acacia in Pat-rights sta z izredno podobno statistiko lahko za zgled vsakemu tehnoloskemu podjetju, ki se po nepotrebnem matra s proizvodnjo, pa vseeno zasluzi bistveno manj.
Npr. podjetje Pat-rights tozi Apple in zahteva 2% gross od prometa iTunes, ker se iTunes prijavi v spletno trgovino z glasbo, kar je Pat-rights patentiral. Patent zajema prijavo na omrezni servis, ki na podlagi izkazane uporabnikove identitete dovoli uporabniku uporabo dolocenih storitev. Tega seveda ni iznaslo podjetje Pat-rights niti noben od zaposlenih v tem podjetju. Ker prijavo na omrezne servise poznamo se iz casov arpaneta, je seveda absurdno, da bo Pat-rights danes tozbo zelo verjetno dobil izven sodisca, ker se Applu ne bo splacalo jit v postopek, ceprav je podjetje z miljonskimi dobicki.
Podobno kot EOLAS vs. Microsoft, kjer EOLAS trdi, da je iznasel nacin, da se programi poganjajo znotraj spletnega brskalnika. Absurdno, pa vseeno je Microsoft stalo se bolj absurdne pol miljarde dolarjev.
In kako to koristi druzbi? Hja, EOLAS ocitno da veliko na inovacije, saj so v preteklosti proizvedli kar 0 novih tehnoloskih resitev in na trg prinesli 0 reci, ki jih vsak dan uporabljamo in brez katerih si zivljenja danes ne moremo predstavljati. Tudi Acacia in Pat-rights sta z izredno podobno statistiko lahko za zgled vsakemu tehnoloskemu podjetju, ki se po nepotrebnem matra s proizvodnjo, pa vseeno zasluzi bistveno manj.
Zgodovina sprememb…
- spremenilo: jype ()
BigWhale ::
Ja, tezko verjet ampak mi, ki smo proti taksnim bizarnim sw patentom zagovarjamo tudi MS. :)
Maria ::
jype
> Tvoj problem je, da ne razumes: patentiran je dvojni klik.
Na ST je bila tema, ki je vsebovala to tematiko, kot tudi zavihke. Lahko tam nadaljuješ.
> Mimogrede: jaz sem programer, zato vem, kaj tiste reci v patentnih zahtevkih pomenijo, ceprav so zavite v ogromno pravniske packarije
> Tvoj problem je, da ne razumes: patentiran je dvojni klik.
> Tvoj problem je tudi, da ne razumes, da jaz lahko dvojni klik opisem na tri nacine
Polno trditev, česa jaz ne razumem in česa ne vem.
> V primeru, da tozis drzavo, ti drzava enostavno pove: Direktiva pravi, da je to veljaven patent, zato ker ustreza predpisom (je tehnicen po tisti neobstojeci definiciji "dodatnega tehnicnega ucinka"). Enako ti pove sodnik, ko te Microsoft tozi.
Če drži, da je zaščitena ideja, ti tega ne morejo reči. Če je zaščitena neumnost, si vesel, da ti je ni potrebno uporabljati in greš lahko mimo. Če drži, da je realizirana ideja pametna rešitev, daš inovatorju kapo dol in plačaš, če želiš zadevo uporabljati. Če ne , je ne uporabljaš.
> Zato se zdaj matramo, da take zakonodaje ne bi sprejeli.
Kakšne take?
> Ce te tozi podjetje zaradi krsitve patenta, ki je veljaven softverski patent, lahko samo placas, ali pa gres past ovce. Nicesar ne mores storiti, ker imajo oni ekskluzivno pravico nad necim, kar si ti ustvaril. Ker ce jaz implementiram dvojni klik in nocem placati licence za patent, me lahko Microsoft (za zdaj le v ZDA, na Japonskem, v Veliki Britaniji in na Irskem) tozi, in tozbo bo dobil, ker je tak zakon.
Drži, vendar ne govorimo o tem. Govorimo o proaktivnosti. Obstaja odbobje časa, ko je observacija in opozicija na patent, ki je v fazi patentne prijave, mogoča. Če v tem času dokažeš, da patent ne izpoljuje patentne pogoje, patent ni podeljen ali je bistveno spremenjen. Če Patentni urad ne sprejme tvojih pripomb in meniš, da krši patentno pravo, ga lahko tožiš. Škodo moraš seveda dokazati.
> Če pa ne, pa ne bo imel izdelka => dobička, s katerim bi pokril stroške patena.
Še enkrat preberi kaj si napisal ti in kaj jaz. Opaziš razliko? Upam da!
Maria
> Tvoj problem je, da ne razumes: patentiran je dvojni klik.
Na ST je bila tema, ki je vsebovala to tematiko, kot tudi zavihke. Lahko tam nadaljuješ.
> Mimogrede: jaz sem programer, zato vem, kaj tiste reci v patentnih zahtevkih pomenijo, ceprav so zavite v ogromno pravniske packarije
> Tvoj problem je, da ne razumes: patentiran je dvojni klik.
> Tvoj problem je tudi, da ne razumes, da jaz lahko dvojni klik opisem na tri nacine
Polno trditev, česa jaz ne razumem in česa ne vem.
> V primeru, da tozis drzavo, ti drzava enostavno pove: Direktiva pravi, da je to veljaven patent, zato ker ustreza predpisom (je tehnicen po tisti neobstojeci definiciji "dodatnega tehnicnega ucinka"). Enako ti pove sodnik, ko te Microsoft tozi.
Če drži, da je zaščitena ideja, ti tega ne morejo reči. Če je zaščitena neumnost, si vesel, da ti je ni potrebno uporabljati in greš lahko mimo. Če drži, da je realizirana ideja pametna rešitev, daš inovatorju kapo dol in plačaš, če želiš zadevo uporabljati. Če ne , je ne uporabljaš.
> Zato se zdaj matramo, da take zakonodaje ne bi sprejeli.
Kakšne take?
> Ce te tozi podjetje zaradi krsitve patenta, ki je veljaven softverski patent, lahko samo placas, ali pa gres past ovce. Nicesar ne mores storiti, ker imajo oni ekskluzivno pravico nad necim, kar si ti ustvaril. Ker ce jaz implementiram dvojni klik in nocem placati licence za patent, me lahko Microsoft (za zdaj le v ZDA, na Japonskem, v Veliki Britaniji in na Irskem) tozi, in tozbo bo dobil, ker je tak zakon.
Drži, vendar ne govorimo o tem. Govorimo o proaktivnosti. Obstaja odbobje časa, ko je observacija in opozicija na patent, ki je v fazi patentne prijave, mogoča. Če v tem času dokažeš, da patent ne izpoljuje patentne pogoje, patent ni podeljen ali je bistveno spremenjen. Če Patentni urad ne sprejme tvojih pripomb in meniš, da krši patentno pravo, ga lahko tožiš. Škodo moraš seveda dokazati.
> Če pa ne, pa ne bo imel izdelka => dobička, s katerim bi pokril stroške patena.
Še enkrat preberi kaj si napisal ti in kaj jaz. Opaziš razliko? Upam da!
Maria
jype ::
Ne razumes: jaz NIMAM sredstev, s katerimi bi se boril proti patentnim odvetnikom. To ni moja panoga. Tega ne zelim, pa tudi treba mi ne bo, ce se direktiva ustrezno popravi, tako da se takih patentov ne bo dalo legalno podeliti (ker ni nobenega racionalnega razloga, da bi patentno zascito podeljevali za abstraktne ideje).
Cesa pri tem ne razumes?
Ce mislis nasprotno, potem mi, prosim, nastej mi en (1) izum na podrocju programske opreme, ki je vreden patentne zascite.
Cesa pri tem ne razumes?
Ce mislis nasprotno, potem mi, prosim, nastej mi en (1) izum na podrocju programske opreme, ki je vreden patentne zascite.
Maria ::
jype
> ega ne zelim, pa tudi treba mi ne bo, ce se direktiva ustrezno popravi, tako da se takih patentov ne bo dalo legalno podeliti (ker ni nobenega racionalnega razloga, da bi patentno zascito podeljevali za abstraktne ideje).
Kakšnih takih?
Patente se ne podeljuje za abstraktne ideje! To bi lahko bilo že jasno. Nobena zakonodaja tega ne dovoljuje.
Glede denarja verjamem. OS skupnost pa to lahko stori in dobi referenčni primer. In najbolje bi bilo tožti tistega, ki je v nasprotju z zakonom podelil patent in ne neko $$ firmo. Na ta način lahko narediš jez za neupravičene patente, ostale uupravičene pa pustiš pri miru.
Maria
> ega ne zelim, pa tudi treba mi ne bo, ce se direktiva ustrezno popravi, tako da se takih patentov ne bo dalo legalno podeliti (ker ni nobenega racionalnega razloga, da bi patentno zascito podeljevali za abstraktne ideje).
Kakšnih takih?
Patente se ne podeljuje za abstraktne ideje! To bi lahko bilo že jasno. Nobena zakonodaja tega ne dovoljuje.
Glede denarja verjamem. OS skupnost pa to lahko stori in dobi referenčni primer. In najbolje bi bilo tožti tistega, ki je v nasprotju z zakonom podelil patent in ne neko $$ firmo. Na ta način lahko narediš jez za neupravičene patente, ostale uupravičene pa pustiš pri miru.
Maria
gpg ::
Kakšne take?
Takšne, ki patentnemu uradu pod krinko nedefinirane "tehničnosti" omogoča, da povsem arbitrano, po intuiciji, odloča, kaj je "patentable subject matter"?
jype ::
OS skupnost lahko vrze goro denarja v pravni sistem, ki ne deluje, zato da bo pravni sistem samega sebe pojedel?
Tega ne razumem. Povedal sem, da nimam denarja za tozbo. Povedal sem tudi, zakaj je besedilo direktive neustrezno.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Plen05En
Tule pise in je natancno obrazlozeno, kaj je z vsakim delom besedila narobe in kako bi ga bilo smiselno popravit.
Se enkrat: podeljujejo se patenti za programsko opremo. Direktiva bo to legalizirala. O tem dejstvu se nimam kaj prepirat, preberi zgornji URL.
Da se "abstraktnih idej" ne da patentirati je seveda naivno prepricanje. Tule je patent, ki je bil podeljen za abstraktno idejo (EP803105):
What is claimed is:
1. A network-based sales system, comprising:
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
at least one merchant computer; and
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
at least one payment computer;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said buyer computer, said merchant computer, and said payment computer being interconnected by a computer network;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a user request for purchasing a product, and to cause a payment message to be sent to said payment computer that comprises a product identifier identifying said product;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said payment computer being programmed to receive said payment message, to cause an access message to be created that comprises said product identifier and an access message authenticator based on a cryptographic key, and to cause said access message to be sent to said merchant computer; and
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said merchant computer being programmed to receive said access message, to verify said access message authenticator to ensure that said access message authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, and to cause said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
Od tu naprej bom nehal pejstat to vprasanje pod vsako vrstico. Lahko si ga zamislite sami.
2. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message and said access message each comprises a universal resource locator.
3. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment computer is programmed to identify said merchant computer upon receipt of said payment message from said buyer computer.
4. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message comprises a buyer network address.
5. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein:
said product can be transmitted from one computer to another; and
said merchant computer causes said product to be sent to said user by transmitting said product to said buyer network address only.
6. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein said merchant computer is programmed to verify whether said buyer network address in said access message matches the actual network address of said buyer computer.
7. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a buyer network address.
8. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 7, wherein said payment computer is programmed to verify whether said buyer network address in said payment message matches the actual network address of said buyer computer.
9. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message authenticator comprises a cryptographic function of contents of said access message based on said cryptographic key.
10. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment computer is programmed to verify said payment message authenticator to ensure that said payment message authenticator was created using said cryptographic key.
11. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 10, wherein said payment message authenticator comprises a cryptographic function of contents of said payment message based on said cryptographic key.
12. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a payment amount.
13. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a merchant account identifier that identifies a merchant account.
14. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to transmit a user account identifier to said payment computer that identifies a user account.
15. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said payment computer is programmed to ensure that said user account has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount.
16. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount and a merchant account identifier that identifies a merchant account; and
said payment computer is programmed to record said payment amount, said user account, and said merchant account in a settlement database.
17. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 16, wherein:
said payment message comprises a domain identifier; and
said payment computer is programmed to record said domain identifier and said user account in a settlement database.
18. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 17, wherein said payment computer is programmed to check said settlement database, upon receipt of said payment message, to determine whether said user account has previously purchased a product associated with said domain identifier.
19. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 18, wherein said payment computer is programmed to determine an actual payment amount for said product identified by said product identifier in said payment message based on whether said user account has previously purchased a product associated with said domain identifier.
20. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to transmit a user authenticator to said payment computer and said payment computer is programmed to verify said user authenticator.
21. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 20, wherein said user authenticator comprises a password.
22. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 20, wherein:
said buyer computer is programmed to transmit security information to said payment computer;
said payment computer is programmed to transmit a challenge form to said buyer computer under a predetermined condition, said challenge form asking for said security information previously transmitted by said buyer computer to said payment computer;
said payment computer is programmed to respond to said challenge form by querying said user for said security information and transmitting said security information to said payment computer; and
said payment computer is programmed to verify authenticity of said security information.
23. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 22, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said predetermined condition comprises receipt of a payment amount in said payment message that exceeds a threshold.
24. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a merchant computer identifier that identifies said merchant computer.
25. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 24, wherein said access message comprises said merchant computer identifier.
26. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a duration time that specifies a length of time for which access to said product is to be granted.
27. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 26, wherein said payment computer is programmed to use said duration time to compute an end of duration time and to cause said end of duration time to be included in said access message.
28. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 27, wherein said merchant computer is programmed to verify, upon receipt of said access message, that said end of duration time has not past.
29. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises an expiration time after which said payment message can no longer be used.
30. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 29, wherein said payment computer is programmed to verify, upon receipt of said payment message, that said expiration time has not past.
31. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein:
said payment computer is programmed to cause said access message to be sent to said buyer computer; and
said buyer computer is programmed to cause said access message received from said payment computer to be sent to said merchant computer.
32. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
at least one merchant computer; and
at least one payment computer;
said buyer computer, said merchant computer, and said payment computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a user request for purchasing a product, and to cause a payment URL to be sent to said payment computer that comprises a product identifier identifying said product, a payment amount, and a payment URL authenticator comprising a cryptographic function of contents of said payment URL based on a cryptographic key;
said payment computer being programmed to receive said payment URL, to verify said payment URL authenticator to ensure that said payment URL authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, to ensure that said user has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount, to identify said merchant computer operated by said merchant willing to sell said product to said buyer, to cause an access URL to be created that comprises said product identifier and an access URL authenticator comprising a cryptographic function of contents of said access URL based on a cryptographic key, and to cause said access URL to be sent to said buyer computer;
said buyer computer being programmed to cause said access URL received from said payment computer to be sent to said merchant computer; and
said merchant computer being programmed to receive said access URL, to verify said access URL authenticator to ensure that said access URL authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, and to cause said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
33. A method of operating a payment computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product, at least one merchant computer, and at least one payment computer, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at said payment computer, a payment message that said buyer computer has caused to be sent to said payment computer in response to a user request for purchasing a product, said payment message comprising a product identifier identifying said product;
causing an access message to be created that comprises said product identifier and an access message authenticator based on a cryptographic key; and
causing said access message to be sent to said merchant computer, said merchant computer being programmed to receive said access message, to verify said access message authenticator to ensure that said access message authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, and to cause said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
34. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products;
at least one shopping cart computer; and
a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer;
said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;
said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;
said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.
35. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 34, wherein said shopping cart computer is programmed to cause said payment message to be created before said buyer computer causes said payment message to be activated.
36. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 34, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to receive a request from said user to display said plurality of products added to said shopping cart.
37. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 36, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to transmit a fetch shopping cart request to said payment computer in response to receipt of said request from said user.
38. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 37, wherein:
said payment computer is programmed to respond to said fetch shopping cart request by transmitting a message to said buyer computer indicating said plurality of products added to said shopping cart; and
said buyer computer is programmed to display said plurality of products added to said shopping cart.
39. A method of operating a shopping cart computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products, at least one shopping cart computer, and a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at said shopping cart computer, a plurality of shopping cart messages sent to said shopping cart computer by said buyer computer in response to receipt of a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, each of said shopping cart messages comprising a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;
modifying said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart; and
causing a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;
said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.
40. A network-based link message system, comprising:
at least one client computer for operation by a client user; and
at least one server computer for operation by a server user;
said client computer and said server computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said client computer being programmed to send an initial link message to said server computer;
said server computer being programmed to receive said initial link message from said client computer, to create, based on information contained in said initial link message, a session link message that encodes a state of interaction between said client computer and said server computer, said session link message comprising a session link authenticator, computed by a cryptographic function of said session link contents, for authenticating said session link message, and to cause said session link message to be sent to said client computer;
said client computer being programmed to cause said session link message to be sent to a computer in said network that is programmed to authenticate said session link message by examining said session link authenticator and that is programmed to respond to said session link message based on said state of said interaction between said client computer and said server computer.
41. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 40, wherein:
said client computer comprises a buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
said server computer comprises a payment computer for operation by a manager of said network-based link message system; and
said network-based link message system further comprises a merchant computer for operation by a merchant willing to sell said product to said buyer.
42. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 41, wherein said computer that is programmed to authenticate said session link message comprises said merchant computer.
43. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 41, wherein said initial link message comprises a payment message to said payment computer that comprises a product identifier identifying said product.
44. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 43, wherein said session link message comprises an access message that comprises said product identifier to be created.
45. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 44, wherein said merchant computer is programmed to respond to said access message by causing said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
46. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 40, wherein said initial link message and said session link message comprise universal resource locators.
47. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 40, wherein:
said session link authenticator comprises a cryptographic function of contents of said session link message based on a cryptographic key; and
said computer to which said client computer is programmed to cause said session link message to be sent is programmed to verify that said session link authenticator was created using said cryptographic key.
48. A method of operating a server computer in a network-based link message system comprising at least one client computer for operation by a client user and at least one server computer for operation by a server user, said client computer and said server computer being interconnected by a computer network, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at said server computer, an initial link message sent to said server computer by said client computer;
creating, based on information contained in said initial link message, a session link message that encodes a state of interaction between said client computer and said server computer, said session link message comprising a session link authenticator, computed by a cryptographic function of said session link contents, for authenticating said session link message; and
causing said session link message to be sent to said client computer;
said client computer being programmed to cause said session link message to be sent to a computer in said network that is programmed to authenticate said session link message by examining said session link authenticator and that is programmed to respond to said session link message based on said state of said interaction between said client computer and said server computer.
==============================================================================
Kar ta patent pokriva je spletna trgovina, do katere stranka lahko dostopa s SSL povezavo, trgovina pa se poveze na credit card confirmation service, kamor vnese transakcijo. Nicesar drugega. Patent je bil vlozen, podeljen in je postal veljaven vec kot 5 let po tistem, ko nas je ze vecina kupovala CDje s cdnow.com in podobnih prvih velikih stacun.
Get real.
Tega ne razumem. Povedal sem, da nimam denarja za tozbo. Povedal sem tudi, zakaj je besedilo direktive neustrezno.
http://wiki.ffii.org/Plen05En
Tule pise in je natancno obrazlozeno, kaj je z vsakim delom besedila narobe in kako bi ga bilo smiselno popravit.
Se enkrat: podeljujejo se patenti za programsko opremo. Direktiva bo to legalizirala. O tem dejstvu se nimam kaj prepirat, preberi zgornji URL.
Da se "abstraktnih idej" ne da patentirati je seveda naivno prepricanje. Tule je patent, ki je bil podeljen za abstraktno idejo (EP803105):
What is claimed is:
1. A network-based sales system, comprising:
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
at least one merchant computer; and
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
at least one payment computer;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said buyer computer, said merchant computer, and said payment computer being interconnected by a computer network;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a user request for purchasing a product, and to cause a payment message to be sent to said payment computer that comprises a product identifier identifying said product;
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said payment computer being programmed to receive said payment message, to cause an access message to be created that comprises said product identifier and an access message authenticator based on a cryptographic key, and to cause said access message to be sent to said merchant computer; and
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
said merchant computer being programmed to receive said access message, to verify said access message authenticator to ensure that said access message authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, and to cause said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
(kaj je tu tehnicnega in/ali novega?)
Od tu naprej bom nehal pejstat to vprasanje pod vsako vrstico. Lahko si ga zamislite sami.
2. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message and said access message each comprises a universal resource locator.
3. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment computer is programmed to identify said merchant computer upon receipt of said payment message from said buyer computer.
4. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message comprises a buyer network address.
5. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein:
said product can be transmitted from one computer to another; and
said merchant computer causes said product to be sent to said user by transmitting said product to said buyer network address only.
6. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 4, wherein said merchant computer is programmed to verify whether said buyer network address in said access message matches the actual network address of said buyer computer.
7. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a buyer network address.
8. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 7, wherein said payment computer is programmed to verify whether said buyer network address in said payment message matches the actual network address of said buyer computer.
9. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said access message authenticator comprises a cryptographic function of contents of said access message based on said cryptographic key.
10. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment computer is programmed to verify said payment message authenticator to ensure that said payment message authenticator was created using said cryptographic key.
11. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 10, wherein said payment message authenticator comprises a cryptographic function of contents of said payment message based on said cryptographic key.
12. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a payment amount.
13. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a merchant account identifier that identifies a merchant account.
14. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to transmit a user account identifier to said payment computer that identifies a user account.
15. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said payment computer is programmed to ensure that said user account has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount.
16. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 14, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount and a merchant account identifier that identifies a merchant account; and
said payment computer is programmed to record said payment amount, said user account, and said merchant account in a settlement database.
17. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 16, wherein:
said payment message comprises a domain identifier; and
said payment computer is programmed to record said domain identifier and said user account in a settlement database.
18. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 17, wherein said payment computer is programmed to check said settlement database, upon receipt of said payment message, to determine whether said user account has previously purchased a product associated with said domain identifier.
19. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 18, wherein said payment computer is programmed to determine an actual payment amount for said product identified by said product identifier in said payment message based on whether said user account has previously purchased a product associated with said domain identifier.
20. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to transmit a user authenticator to said payment computer and said payment computer is programmed to verify said user authenticator.
21. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 20, wherein said user authenticator comprises a password.
22. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 20, wherein:
said buyer computer is programmed to transmit security information to said payment computer;
said payment computer is programmed to transmit a challenge form to said buyer computer under a predetermined condition, said challenge form asking for said security information previously transmitted by said buyer computer to said payment computer;
said payment computer is programmed to respond to said challenge form by querying said user for said security information and transmitting said security information to said payment computer; and
said payment computer is programmed to verify authenticity of said security information.
23. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 22, wherein:
said payment message comprises a payment amount; and
said predetermined condition comprises receipt of a payment amount in said payment message that exceeds a threshold.
24. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a merchant computer identifier that identifies said merchant computer.
25. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 24, wherein said access message comprises said merchant computer identifier.
26. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises a duration time that specifies a length of time for which access to said product is to be granted.
27. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 26, wherein said payment computer is programmed to use said duration time to compute an end of duration time and to cause said end of duration time to be included in said access message.
28. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 27, wherein said merchant computer is programmed to verify, upon receipt of said access message, that said end of duration time has not past.
29. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein said payment message comprises an expiration time after which said payment message can no longer be used.
30. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 29, wherein said payment computer is programmed to verify, upon receipt of said payment message, that said expiration time has not past.
31. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 1, wherein:
said payment computer is programmed to cause said access message to be sent to said buyer computer; and
said buyer computer is programmed to cause said access message received from said payment computer to be sent to said merchant computer.
32. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
at least one merchant computer; and
at least one payment computer;
said buyer computer, said merchant computer, and said payment computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a user request for purchasing a product, and to cause a payment URL to be sent to said payment computer that comprises a product identifier identifying said product, a payment amount, and a payment URL authenticator comprising a cryptographic function of contents of said payment URL based on a cryptographic key;
said payment computer being programmed to receive said payment URL, to verify said payment URL authenticator to ensure that said payment URL authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, to ensure that said user has sufficient funds or credit to cover said payment amount, to identify said merchant computer operated by said merchant willing to sell said product to said buyer, to cause an access URL to be created that comprises said product identifier and an access URL authenticator comprising a cryptographic function of contents of said access URL based on a cryptographic key, and to cause said access URL to be sent to said buyer computer;
said buyer computer being programmed to cause said access URL received from said payment computer to be sent to said merchant computer; and
said merchant computer being programmed to receive said access URL, to verify said access URL authenticator to ensure that said access URL authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, and to cause said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
33. A method of operating a payment computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product, at least one merchant computer, and at least one payment computer, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at said payment computer, a payment message that said buyer computer has caused to be sent to said payment computer in response to a user request for purchasing a product, said payment message comprising a product identifier identifying said product;
causing an access message to be created that comprises said product identifier and an access message authenticator based on a cryptographic key; and
causing said access message to be sent to said merchant computer, said merchant computer being programmed to receive said access message, to verify said access message authenticator to ensure that said access message authenticator was created using said cryptographic key, and to cause said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
34. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products;
at least one shopping cart computer; and
a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer;
said buyer computer and said shopping cart computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, and, in response to said requests to add said products, to send a plurality of respective shopping cart messages to said shopping cart computer each of which comprises a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;
said shopping cart computer being programmed to receive said plurality of shopping cart messages, to modify said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart, and to cause a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created; and
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;
said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.
35. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 34, wherein said shopping cart computer is programmed to cause said payment message to be created before said buyer computer causes said payment message to be activated.
36. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 34, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to receive a request from said user to display said plurality of products added to said shopping cart.
37. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 36, wherein said buyer computer is programmed to transmit a fetch shopping cart request to said payment computer in response to receipt of said request from said user.
38. A network-based sales system in accordance with claim 37, wherein:
said payment computer is programmed to respond to said fetch shopping cart request by transmitting a message to said buyer computer indicating said plurality of products added to said shopping cart; and
said buyer computer is programmed to display said plurality of products added to said shopping cart.
39. A method of operating a shopping cart computer in a computer network comprising at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy products, at least one shopping cart computer, and a shopping cart database connected to said shopping cart computer, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at said shopping cart computer, a plurality of shopping cart messages sent to said shopping cart computer by said buyer computer in response to receipt of a plurality of requests from a user to add a plurality of respective products to a shopping cart in said shopping cart database, each of said shopping cart messages comprising a product identifier identifying one of said plurality of products;
modifying said shopping cart in said shopping cart database to reflect said plurality of requests to add said plurality of products to said shopping cart; and
causing a payment message associated with said shopping cart to be created;
said buyer computer being programmed to receive a request from said user to purchase said plurality of products added to said shopping cart and to cause said payment message to be activated to initiate a payment transaction for said plurality of products added to said shopping cart;
said shopping cart being a stored representation of a collection of products, said shopping cart database being a database of stored representations of collections of products, and said shopping cart computer being a computer that modifies said stored representations of collections of products in said database.
40. A network-based link message system, comprising:
at least one client computer for operation by a client user; and
at least one server computer for operation by a server user;
said client computer and said server computer being interconnected by a computer network;
said client computer being programmed to send an initial link message to said server computer;
said server computer being programmed to receive said initial link message from said client computer, to create, based on information contained in said initial link message, a session link message that encodes a state of interaction between said client computer and said server computer, said session link message comprising a session link authenticator, computed by a cryptographic function of said session link contents, for authenticating said session link message, and to cause said session link message to be sent to said client computer;
said client computer being programmed to cause said session link message to be sent to a computer in said network that is programmed to authenticate said session link message by examining said session link authenticator and that is programmed to respond to said session link message based on said state of said interaction between said client computer and said server computer.
41. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 40, wherein:
said client computer comprises a buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
said server computer comprises a payment computer for operation by a manager of said network-based link message system; and
said network-based link message system further comprises a merchant computer for operation by a merchant willing to sell said product to said buyer.
42. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 41, wherein said computer that is programmed to authenticate said session link message comprises said merchant computer.
43. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 41, wherein said initial link message comprises a payment message to said payment computer that comprises a product identifier identifying said product.
44. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 43, wherein said session link message comprises an access message that comprises said product identifier to be created.
45. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 44, wherein said merchant computer is programmed to respond to said access message by causing said product to be sent to said user desiring to buy said product.
46. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 40, wherein said initial link message and said session link message comprise universal resource locators.
47. A network-based link message system in accordance with claim 40, wherein:
said session link authenticator comprises a cryptographic function of contents of said session link message based on a cryptographic key; and
said computer to which said client computer is programmed to cause said session link message to be sent is programmed to verify that said session link authenticator was created using said cryptographic key.
48. A method of operating a server computer in a network-based link message system comprising at least one client computer for operation by a client user and at least one server computer for operation by a server user, said client computer and said server computer being interconnected by a computer network, said method comprising the steps of:
receiving, at said server computer, an initial link message sent to said server computer by said client computer;
creating, based on information contained in said initial link message, a session link message that encodes a state of interaction between said client computer and said server computer, said session link message comprising a session link authenticator, computed by a cryptographic function of said session link contents, for authenticating said session link message; and
causing said session link message to be sent to said client computer;
said client computer being programmed to cause said session link message to be sent to a computer in said network that is programmed to authenticate said session link message by examining said session link authenticator and that is programmed to respond to said session link message based on said state of said interaction between said client computer and said server computer.
==============================================================================
Kar ta patent pokriva je spletna trgovina, do katere stranka lahko dostopa s SSL povezavo, trgovina pa se poveze na credit card confirmation service, kamor vnese transakcijo. Nicesar drugega. Patent je bil vlozen, podeljen in je postal veljaven vec kot 5 let po tistem, ko nas je ze vecina kupovala CDje s cdnow.com in podobnih prvih velikih stacun.
Get real.
borchi ::
Tega ti preprosto ne verjamem, razen , če živiš v Stalinovih časih.
ja, hvala, zdej se pa kr bolš počutim.
zanimivo je primerjat argumentacijo. tvojo in policijsko. "to ni res, ni se zgodilo. tega policist ne sme naredit." torej se ni zgodilo!!??
take kretenske zadrž za sebe, ok?
l'jga
Maria ::
> Takšne, ki patentnemu uradu pod krinko nedefinirane "tehničnosti" omogoča, da povsem arbitrano, po intuiciji, odloča, kaj je "patentable subject matter"?
Tole z intuicijo je precej ostra trditev, ki bi jo bilo potrebno argumentirati, še posebej, če vemo kako proces preizkušanja patenta poteka.
Po drugi strani, če dopustimo (testno za potrebe pogovora) utemeljenost te trditve, je bila predlagana boljša definicija programsko-tehnične rešitve, ki bi bila bolj jasna in učinkovitejša?. Jo lahko slišimo?
Maria
Tole z intuicijo je precej ostra trditev, ki bi jo bilo potrebno argumentirati, še posebej, če vemo kako proces preizkušanja patenta poteka.
Po drugi strani, če dopustimo (testno za potrebe pogovora) utemeljenost te trditve, je bila predlagana boljša definicija programsko-tehnične rešitve, ki bi bila bolj jasna in učinkovitejša?. Jo lahko slišimo?
Maria
jype ::
Maria: ja.
"Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology". A new teaching about the use of controllable forces of nature, under the control of a computer program and beyond the technical devices required to implement the program, is technical. The processing, handling, representation and presentation of information by computer program are not technical, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes;
Bo?
"Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology". A new teaching about the use of controllable forces of nature, under the control of a computer program and beyond the technical devices required to implement the program, is technical. The processing, handling, representation and presentation of information by computer program are not technical, even where technical devices are employed for such purposes;
Bo?
Maria ::
borchi
Če imaš dokaz o neupravičenem nasilju policista in če to želiš dokazati, to lahko dokažeš. Če ne v Sloveniji, pa na Evropskem sodišču. Ne vem kaj je tu kretensko?
Maria
Če imaš dokaz o neupravičenem nasilju policista in če to želiš dokazati, to lahko dokažeš. Če ne v Sloveniji, pa na Evropskem sodišču. Ne vem kaj je tu kretensko?
Maria
Maria ::
jype
Odlično. Če si prepričan, da to vzdrži več vode, do konca s tem predlogom! To ni mišljeno ironično. Vsekakor je potrebno slišati nasprotna mnenja.
Maria
Odlično. Če si prepričan, da to vzdrži več vode, do konca s tem predlogom! To ni mišljeno ironično. Vsekakor je potrebno slišati nasprotna mnenja.
Maria
Maria ::
> 1. A network-based sales system, comprising:
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
Kaj tu ni tehnično?
Ali je novo ali ne, potrebuješ le dokaz, da je zadeva znana že prej, vložiš (vložite) nulifikacijo in kasneje še iztožite patentni urad za nekvalitetno opravljeno delo in povzročeno škodo. Imaš ta dokaz? Če imaš, predlagam, da si LUGOS zada nalogo, da na evropskem nivoju organizira sredstva in strokovnjake za to opravilo.
Maria
at least one buyer computer for operation by a user desiring to buy a product;
Kaj tu ni tehnično?
Ali je novo ali ne, potrebuješ le dokaz, da je zadeva znana že prej, vložiš (vložite) nulifikacijo in kasneje še iztožite patentni urad za nekvalitetno opravljeno delo in povzročeno škodo. Imaš ta dokaz? Če imaš, predlagam, da si LUGOS zada nalogo, da na evropskem nivoju organizira sredstva in strokovnjake za to opravilo.
Maria
borchi ::
Tole z intuicijo je precej ostra trditev, ki bi jo bilo potrebno argumentirati, še posebej, če vemo kako proces preizkušanja patenta poteka.
zgornji primer, ki ga je dal jype precej dobro pokaže kako proces preizkušanja poteka, se ti ne zdi?
Če imaš dokaz o neupravičenem nasilju policista in če to želiš dokazati, to lahko dokažeš.
i rest my case. ja, OČITNO, nimam posnetka dogodka z vojaškega satelita. in takrat sem pozabu met na seb namontirane vse infrardeče kamere in vse mikrofone. za dna analizo vseh mogočih sledi pa nimam dnarja.
a zdej ti že uspe potegnat paralele? šou bom na evropsko sodišče??!! in čez par let bom dočakal razsodbo? veš, janez s.p. nima cajta za te ribarije. ampak tega pač nočeš pokapirat.
l'jga
jype ::
Ma, sej bi zivce zgubu, pa ne bo pomagalo.
Takih patentov je vse polno! Zdaj niso veljavni, ce bo "common position" sprejeta, pa bodo, zaradi spornih clenov, ki so v smislu racunalniske znanosti tavtologije (ceprav se morda kakemu pravniku to ne zdi ocitno).
Jaz nimam ne denarja ne casa se ukvarjat z njimi, zato se zavzemam, da bi besedilo direktive ustrezno popravili.
Ustrezne popravke je enkrat ze vnesel evropski parlament, vendar je svet ministrov zopet potrdil predlog, ki je te popravke zavrgel (pri tem mi gre IZREDNO na jetra stalisce Slovenije, ki je tisto direktivo podprla, ne da bi o tem vprasala kogarkoli, razen patentne uradnike in predstavnike na GZS, nobeden od katerih ni o tem vprasal nobenega "person, skilled in the art of programming").
Ker imajo podjetja z velikimi patentnimi portfelji ociten in izredno velik ekonomski interes, da se zakonodaja, ki se sprejema, do softverskih patentov opredeljuje pozitivno, moramo na vsak nacin vztrajati, da si take zakonodaje ne zelimo. Pri tem nam pomagajo znanstveniki z vec podrocij, predvsem matematike, ekonomije in prava, ki so ZE POVEDALI svoje strokovno mnenje in predstavili raziskave, ki jasno kazejo, da to, kar bi rada dosegla direktiva v "common position" razlicici, skoduje tako evropskemu gospodarstvu kot tudi celotni evropski druzbi.
Dokler me nekdo argumentirano ne preprica v nasprotno, se moram pac precej agresivno boriti za to, da bom lahko se naprej programiral in tudi obdrzal pravice nad svojimi izdelki.
Takih patentov je vse polno! Zdaj niso veljavni, ce bo "common position" sprejeta, pa bodo, zaradi spornih clenov, ki so v smislu racunalniske znanosti tavtologije (ceprav se morda kakemu pravniku to ne zdi ocitno).
Jaz nimam ne denarja ne casa se ukvarjat z njimi, zato se zavzemam, da bi besedilo direktive ustrezno popravili.
Ustrezne popravke je enkrat ze vnesel evropski parlament, vendar je svet ministrov zopet potrdil predlog, ki je te popravke zavrgel (pri tem mi gre IZREDNO na jetra stalisce Slovenije, ki je tisto direktivo podprla, ne da bi o tem vprasala kogarkoli, razen patentne uradnike in predstavnike na GZS, nobeden od katerih ni o tem vprasal nobenega "person, skilled in the art of programming").
Ker imajo podjetja z velikimi patentnimi portfelji ociten in izredno velik ekonomski interes, da se zakonodaja, ki se sprejema, do softverskih patentov opredeljuje pozitivno, moramo na vsak nacin vztrajati, da si take zakonodaje ne zelimo. Pri tem nam pomagajo znanstveniki z vec podrocij, predvsem matematike, ekonomije in prava, ki so ZE POVEDALI svoje strokovno mnenje in predstavili raziskave, ki jasno kazejo, da to, kar bi rada dosegla direktiva v "common position" razlicici, skoduje tako evropskemu gospodarstvu kot tudi celotni evropski druzbi.
Dokler me nekdo argumentirano ne preprica v nasprotno, se moram pac precej agresivno boriti za to, da bom lahko se naprej programiral in tudi obdrzal pravice nad svojimi izdelki.
jype ::
Maria> Kaj tu ni tehnicno?
Pa smo spet tam. A znas uporabljati spletno trgovino brez "at least one buyer computer"?
A je "at least one buyer computer" nova stvar? Ce ni, potem se je ne bi smelo dat patentirat.
Pa smo spet tam. A znas uporabljati spletno trgovino brez "at least one buyer computer"?
A je "at least one buyer computer" nova stvar? Ce ni, potem se je ne bi smelo dat patentirat.
jype ::
Ni nam treba napadati tega patenta, ker po evropski patentni konvenciji predlozeni izum ni patentibilen, ker zahtevki opisujejo idejo spletne trgovine in nicesar drugega.
Tako "izum" ni tehnicen, da ni nov je pa tako in tako jasno kot beli dan (in je bilo jasno vsakemu pismenemu cloveku tudi leta 1995, ko je bil patent vlozen pri USPTO). Mimogrede, prek spletne trgovine sem v zacetku leta 1994 kupil svojo prvo Linux distribucijo.
Tako "izum" ni tehnicen, da ni nov je pa tako in tako jasno kot beli dan (in je bilo jasno vsakemu pismenemu cloveku tudi leta 1995, ko je bil patent vlozen pri USPTO). Mimogrede, prek spletne trgovine sem v zacetku leta 1994 kupil svojo prvo Linux distribucijo.
Maria ::
jype
A ti veš, kako se patentne zahtevke bere? Tako kot si jih bral ti, ne.
Ali je novo? Novo je , če je zaščiten sistem-tehnična rešitev nova in ne če je posamezen vijak nov.
Maria
A ti veš, kako se patentne zahtevke bere? Tako kot si jih bral ti, ne.
Ali je novo? Novo je , če je zaščiten sistem-tehnična rešitev nova in ne če je posamezen vijak nov.
Maria
borchi ::
pa še nekej je zanimivo. zakaj recimo microsoft iz zgornjega primera ne vrže tiste miljone v tožbo proti patentnemu uradu? zakaj raje nakaže dnar "konkurentu", ki lahko s tem denarjem postane še močnejši?
ker nisto tumasti pri MSju. ker vejo, da če parkrat taveliki olupijo patentne uradnike, bo vlka jeba spravlat vsakojake patente skoz in adijo patentni karteli.
tu je kr nekej tehtnih pomislekov. jype je verjetno celo kako vrstico kode manj napisal v teh dveh dneh, marija pa nas vztrajno odpravlja z "odkritjem", da vse naše težave z "dvoklik patenti" en-dva-tri reši okrajno sodišče, če že moja branjevka ne utegne.
ker nisto tumasti pri MSju. ker vejo, da če parkrat taveliki olupijo patentne uradnike, bo vlka jeba spravlat vsakojake patente skoz in adijo patentni karteli.
tu je kr nekej tehtnih pomislekov. jype je verjetno celo kako vrstico kode manj napisal v teh dveh dneh, marija pa nas vztrajno odpravlja z "odkritjem", da vse naše težave z "dvoklik patenti" en-dva-tri reši okrajno sodišče, če že moja branjevka ne utegne.
l'jga
Maria ::
> Ni nam treba napadati tega patenta, ker po evropski patentni konvenciji predlozeni izum ni patentibilen, ker zahtevki opisujejo idejo spletne trgovine in nicesar drugega.
Ne opisuje idejo, ampak tehnično rešitev, ki ima svoje podlage.
> Mimogrede, prek spletne trgovine sem v zacetku leta 1994 kupil svojo prvo Linux distribucijo.
Če je princip tehnične rešitve enak, lahko patent nulificiraš ali ga ne upoštevaš. Celo utemeljeno lahko tožiš patentni urad. Niti ne vem, zakaj tega že nisi (niso) organiziral(-i). Tak referenčni primer bi bistveno več pomenil za OS, kot pa razna stokanja, kakšne krivice se dogajajo.
Maria
Ne opisuje idejo, ampak tehnično rešitev, ki ima svoje podlage.
> Mimogrede, prek spletne trgovine sem v zacetku leta 1994 kupil svojo prvo Linux distribucijo.
Če je princip tehnične rešitve enak, lahko patent nulificiraš ali ga ne upoštevaš. Celo utemeljeno lahko tožiš patentni urad. Niti ne vem, zakaj tega že nisi (niso) organiziral(-i). Tak referenčni primer bi bistveno več pomenil za OS, kot pa razna stokanja, kakšne krivice se dogajajo.
Maria
jype ::
NOBENA od reci, opisanih v zahtevkih ni nova. Tudi celota ni nova. Sem ze povedal, da kar zahtevki opisujejo je spletna trgovina, dostopna prek protokola SSL. Nikjer v zahtevkih ni implementacije ideje, celota vseh zahtevkov je zgolj opis ideje v pravniskem jeziku. Isti opis lahko zapisem v cloveskem jeziku in v programskem jeziku. Ce programski jezik prevedem v strojni in ga pozenem na racunalniku, bo spletna trgovina delovala. Nic novega, nic tehnicnega.
Vsaka alternativna implementacija spletne trgovine, bo krsila ta patent, ker se spletne trgovine NE DA implementirati drugace, kot da imas:
- odjemalcev racunalnik, kjer uporabnik klika
- streznik, kjer tece spletna trgovina
- SSL povezavo, ki skrbi za varnost podatkov
- credit card verification service, ki ga ponuja vsaka kompetentna banka
Torej? Zakaj je ta patent upraviceno podeljen?
Vsaka alternativna implementacija spletne trgovine, bo krsila ta patent, ker se spletne trgovine NE DA implementirati drugace, kot da imas:
- odjemalcev racunalnik, kjer uporabnik klika
- streznik, kjer tece spletna trgovina
- SSL povezavo, ki skrbi za varnost podatkov
- credit card verification service, ki ga ponuja vsaka kompetentna banka
Torej? Zakaj je ta patent upraviceno podeljen?
jype ::
Ti si ocitno doma v nekem drugem svetu, ker jaz v prostem casu (kot tudi med sluzbo) rad programiram.
Ne vem cemu bi se hodil bost na EPO, ce lahko zdaj tezim svojim politicnim predstavnikom, in jih prepricam v to da taki patenti ne koristijo nikomur. Ce se takih patentov preprosto ne dovoli podeljevati, je problem razresen!
Vas problem je ta, da slepo verjamete, da patenti vzpodbujajo inovativnost. Verjamete, da ce je v patentnem zahtevku premaknjena vejica, gre za drug patent. Na zalost stvari niso tako preproste, ker vam bo vsak programer prebral ta patent in vam povedal, da je to "ena navadna spletna trgovina".
In se to: zakaj se vam zdi, da je dovolj, da se ne da patentirati racunalniskega programa, racunalniski program skupaj z racunalnikom pa lahko? Saj vendar ne poganjate programov s papirjem in svincnikom, ali pac? Vsak program potrebuje racunalniski sistem, da ga osmisli. Nihce ne nasprotuje patentom na nove racunalniske sisteme, jasno pa je, da racunalniski sistem, ki ni nov, poganja pa nove programe, ne more biti predmet patentne zascite, ker je edina novost v tem sistemu popolnoma abstraktna matematicna entiteta, graf, ce hocete. Ne razumem, kako lahko tako umetno locujete program in racunalnik-s-programom. Eno brez drugega tako in tako nima smisla, kajne?
Ne vem cemu bi se hodil bost na EPO, ce lahko zdaj tezim svojim politicnim predstavnikom, in jih prepricam v to da taki patenti ne koristijo nikomur. Ce se takih patentov preprosto ne dovoli podeljevati, je problem razresen!
Vas problem je ta, da slepo verjamete, da patenti vzpodbujajo inovativnost. Verjamete, da ce je v patentnem zahtevku premaknjena vejica, gre za drug patent. Na zalost stvari niso tako preproste, ker vam bo vsak programer prebral ta patent in vam povedal, da je to "ena navadna spletna trgovina".
In se to: zakaj se vam zdi, da je dovolj, da se ne da patentirati racunalniskega programa, racunalniski program skupaj z racunalnikom pa lahko? Saj vendar ne poganjate programov s papirjem in svincnikom, ali pac? Vsak program potrebuje racunalniski sistem, da ga osmisli. Nihce ne nasprotuje patentom na nove racunalniske sisteme, jasno pa je, da racunalniski sistem, ki ni nov, poganja pa nove programe, ne more biti predmet patentne zascite, ker je edina novost v tem sistemu popolnoma abstraktna matematicna entiteta, graf, ce hocete. Ne razumem, kako lahko tako umetno locujete program in racunalnik-s-programom. Eno brez drugega tako in tako nima smisla, kajne?
Maria ::
jype
> OBENA od reci, opisanih v zahtevkih ni nova. Tudi celota ni nova. Sem ze povedal, da kar zahtevki opisujejo je spletna trgovina, dostopna prek protokola SSL. Nikjer v zahtevkih ni implementacije ideje, celota vseh zahtevkov je zgolj opis ideje v pravniskem jeziku.
Patent je sestavljen iz več delov, ki tvorijo celoto. Oden od njih je podrobnejši opis izuma. Mimo tega opisa, ki mora biti podroben in jasen, zahtevki ne morejo. Če je tehnični opis te rešitve res znan, si na konju. Brez podrobnejšega opisa izuma, primerov in morebitnih slik in skic, so zahtevki prazna beseda. Zato je tvoja trditev od ideji in opisu ideje le izkazano neznanje o strukturi patentov in nič več. Je prazna trditev, ki nikjer ne vzdrži.
> Vsaka alternativna implementacija spletne trgovine, bo krsila ta patent, ker se spletne trgovine NE DA implementirati drugace, kot da imas:
- odjemalcev racunalnik, kjer uporabnik klika
- streznik, kjer tece spletna trgovina
- SSL povezavo, ki skrbi za varnost podatkov
- credit card verification service, ki ga ponuja vsaka kompetentna banka
Torej? Zakaj je ta patent upraviceno podeljen?
Če je bil podroben opis izuma in sama tehnična rešitev že znana, ti nihče ne more nič. Prior art. Prilepi si ga na vrata firme ali na spletno stran.
Maria
> OBENA od reci, opisanih v zahtevkih ni nova. Tudi celota ni nova. Sem ze povedal, da kar zahtevki opisujejo je spletna trgovina, dostopna prek protokola SSL. Nikjer v zahtevkih ni implementacije ideje, celota vseh zahtevkov je zgolj opis ideje v pravniskem jeziku.
Patent je sestavljen iz več delov, ki tvorijo celoto. Oden od njih je podrobnejši opis izuma. Mimo tega opisa, ki mora biti podroben in jasen, zahtevki ne morejo. Če je tehnični opis te rešitve res znan, si na konju. Brez podrobnejšega opisa izuma, primerov in morebitnih slik in skic, so zahtevki prazna beseda. Zato je tvoja trditev od ideji in opisu ideje le izkazano neznanje o strukturi patentov in nič več. Je prazna trditev, ki nikjer ne vzdrži.
> Vsaka alternativna implementacija spletne trgovine, bo krsila ta patent, ker se spletne trgovine NE DA implementirati drugace, kot da imas:
- odjemalcev racunalnik, kjer uporabnik klika
- streznik, kjer tece spletna trgovina
- SSL povezavo, ki skrbi za varnost podatkov
- credit card verification service, ki ga ponuja vsaka kompetentna banka
Torej? Zakaj je ta patent upraviceno podeljen?
Če je bil podroben opis izuma in sama tehnična rešitev že znana, ti nihče ne more nič. Prior art. Prilepi si ga na vrata firme ali na spletno stran.
Maria
Maria ::
jype
> Vas problem je ta, da slepo verjamete, da patenti vzpodbujajo inovativnost.
To o slepem verjetju je spet trditev brez osnove.
Maria
> Vas problem je ta, da slepo verjamete, da patenti vzpodbujajo inovativnost.
To o slepem verjetju je spet trditev brez osnove.
Maria
Maria ::
borchi
> ker nisto tumasti pri MSju. ker vejo, da če parkrat taveliki olupijo patentne uradnike, bo vlka jeba spravlat vsakojake patente skoz in adijo patentni karteli.
Kar tebe ne ovira, da jih ne bi olupil.
> marija pa nas vztrajno odpravlja z "odkritjem", da vse naše težave z "dvoklik patenti" en-dva-tri reši okrajno sodišče, če že moja branjevka ne utegne
Prepričujem vas, da z diletantizmom ne boste opravili veliko ali skoraj nič. Cinizem ti koristi le pri boljšem počutju, če že.
Ampak, verjetno res preveč pričakujem od človeka, ki niti imena ne zna pravilno prepisati, kaj šele kaj drugega.
Maria
> ker nisto tumasti pri MSju. ker vejo, da če parkrat taveliki olupijo patentne uradnike, bo vlka jeba spravlat vsakojake patente skoz in adijo patentni karteli.
Kar tebe ne ovira, da jih ne bi olupil.
> marija pa nas vztrajno odpravlja z "odkritjem", da vse naše težave z "dvoklik patenti" en-dva-tri reši okrajno sodišče, če že moja branjevka ne utegne
Prepričujem vas, da z diletantizmom ne boste opravili veliko ali skoraj nič. Cinizem ti koristi le pri boljšem počutju, če že.
Ampak, verjetno res preveč pričakujem od človeka, ki niti imena ne zna pravilno prepisati, kaj šele kaj drugega.
Maria
jype ::
Ja, ta o slepi veri je pa res.
Ampak vseeno ne vidim razloga, zakaj se direktiva ne bi ustrezno popravila. Zal v vseh svojih postih nisi ovrgla niti ene moje trditve.
Se vec, ker amerisko podjetje Trading Technologies tozi precej evropskih podjetij, ki se ukvarjajo z vrednostnimi papirji, ker imajo po ekranu na tak-in-tak nacin razporejena okna, bi rekel, da so softverski patenti tudi v evropi ze prisotni in skodljivo vplivajo.
Se vedno se ne potrudis razumet, da je irelevantno, ce sem prebral celoten podroben opis (sem prebral vse kar je na espacenetu, za kakih 120 patentov), dejstvo je, da so ti patenti podeljeni za reci, ki niso niti nove, niti tehnicne.
"Racunalnik" pac ne more biti nov, dokler ni v patentni prijavi napisano, kaksno tehnolosko izboljsavo ima.
"Program" pa ne more biti tehnicen, ne glede na to kako ga obracas. To, da program tece na racunalniku, se ne pomeni, da nenadoma postane cela stvar nova in tehnicna (no, tega pravzaprav ne vem, ampak ce drzi nasprotno, potem je sistem pokvarjen in ga je treba spremeniti).
Ampak vseeno ne vidim razloga, zakaj se direktiva ne bi ustrezno popravila. Zal v vseh svojih postih nisi ovrgla niti ene moje trditve.
Se vec, ker amerisko podjetje Trading Technologies tozi precej evropskih podjetij, ki se ukvarjajo z vrednostnimi papirji, ker imajo po ekranu na tak-in-tak nacin razporejena okna, bi rekel, da so softverski patenti tudi v evropi ze prisotni in skodljivo vplivajo.
Se vedno se ne potrudis razumet, da je irelevantno, ce sem prebral celoten podroben opis (sem prebral vse kar je na espacenetu, za kakih 120 patentov), dejstvo je, da so ti patenti podeljeni za reci, ki niso niti nove, niti tehnicne.
"Racunalnik" pac ne more biti nov, dokler ni v patentni prijavi napisano, kaksno tehnolosko izboljsavo ima.
"Program" pa ne more biti tehnicen, ne glede na to kako ga obracas. To, da program tece na racunalniku, se ne pomeni, da nenadoma postane cela stvar nova in tehnicna (no, tega pravzaprav ne vem, ampak ce drzi nasprotno, potem je sistem pokvarjen in ga je treba spremeniti).
borchi ::
To o slepem verjetju je spet trditev brez osnove.
pol pa pokaž, da nisi slepa. te priganjamo že celo temo. za štart, študija kako bo direktiva pripomogla k konkurenčnejšim/inovativnejšim slovenskim sw podjetjem?!
l'jga
gpg ::
Glede tehničnosti. Moje mnenje je, da je šel BoA EPO pri postavljanju mej patentabilnosti predaleč. Vedno bodo primeri, ki so mejni. Mogoče pa lahko to sivo območje zmanjšamo in povečamo pravno gotovost.
Nekaj različnih možnih definicij:
Npr. kot sinonim:
1. Tehnično je fizično.
2. Tehnično je znanstveno.
ali pa
3. da se to omeji (kot je to predlagano v nekaterih amandmajih):
- s pozitivnimi:
A "field of technology" is a discipline of applied sciences in which new knowledge is gained by experimentation with controllable forces of nature. "Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology";
- in negativnimi definicijami:
"Member States shall ensure that data processing is not considered to be a field of technology within the meaning of patent law, and that innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be inventions within the meaning of patent law."
Si prepričana, da je to realna možnost? Ne poznam primera, da bi se kdaj to kje zgodilo. Ga poznaš ti? Jaz vem, da vsaj nekateri s kakovostjo patentnega sistem na sploh nikakor niso zadovoljni.
Nekaj različnih možnih definicij:
Npr. kot sinonim:
1. Tehnično je fizično.
2. Tehnično je znanstveno.
ali pa
3. da se to omeji (kot je to predlagano v nekaterih amandmajih):
- s pozitivnimi:
A "field of technology" is a discipline of applied sciences in which new knowledge is gained by experimentation with controllable forces of nature. "Technical" means "belonging to a field of technology";
- in negativnimi definicijami:
"Member States shall ensure that data processing is not considered to be a field of technology within the meaning of patent law, and that innovations in the field of data processing are not considered to be inventions within the meaning of patent law."
iztožite patentni urad za nekvalitetno opravljeno delo in povzročeno škodo
Si prepričana, da je to realna možnost? Ne poznam primera, da bi se kdaj to kje zgodilo. Ga poznaš ti? Jaz vem, da vsaj nekateri s kakovostjo patentnega sistem na sploh nikakor niso zadovoljni.
borchi ::
edino kar marija zna, je pravilno napisat svoj nick. 
zna se zgodit, da boš mogu ŠE mal počakat BW.
zna se zgodit, da boš mogu ŠE mal počakat BW.
l'jga
WarpedGone ::
Preveč je od Marie pričakovat da bo od nek potegnila kak argument za, ki bi bil osnovan na realnosti. Je predaleč od programerskega sveta.
Danes je šef povedu kaj si misli o vsem skup. Sej lepo da se da zaščitit nek dejanski dosežek ampak da lahk vsak kekec patentira vsak prdec (kar sedaj lahko) in pol morjo se drugi ubadat z njim in mu dokazovat da nima prav ter tratit svoj čas in energijo in lasten denar zarad tega je pa neumno in narobe.
Primerek upravičenih patentov, po mojem menju, so recimo implementacije kodekov. Stvar dejansko zahteva precej raziskav in razvoja. Prav da se lahk to delo zaščiti.
Ni pa prav da se patentira sama specifikacija, recimo mp3. Naj ima fraunhoffer patentiran codec, ki zna pretvarjat v mp3. Ni pa prav da ima patent tudi nad samo specifikacijo formata in nihče drug ne more narest alternativnega codeca, ki bi zapisoval v istem formatu brez plačila licenčnine.
Danes je šef povedu kaj si misli o vsem skup. Sej lepo da se da zaščitit nek dejanski dosežek ampak da lahk vsak kekec patentira vsak prdec (kar sedaj lahko) in pol morjo se drugi ubadat z njim in mu dokazovat da nima prav ter tratit svoj čas in energijo in lasten denar zarad tega je pa neumno in narobe.
Primerek upravičenih patentov, po mojem menju, so recimo implementacije kodekov. Stvar dejansko zahteva precej raziskav in razvoja. Prav da se lahk to delo zaščiti.
Ni pa prav da se patentira sama specifikacija, recimo mp3. Naj ima fraunhoffer patentiran codec, ki zna pretvarjat v mp3. Ni pa prav da ima patent tudi nad samo specifikacijo formata in nihče drug ne more narest alternativnega codeca, ki bi zapisoval v istem formatu brez plačila licenčnine.
Zbogom in hvala za vse ribe
gpg ::
Daedalus ::
Maria, IMO ti malo preveč naivno gledaš na možnosti tožbe v primeru napačno podeljenega patenta. Ali pa predlog, da naj LUGOS zrihta par strokovnjakov in na EU nivoju razsuje vsaj en neupravičen patent... Eno je teorija, drugo je pa par let j*banja po sodiščih, financiranje take zadeve ob negotovem izidu (ne zaupam preveč pravosodnemu sistemu).
Daj mi povej nekaj - koliko možnosti (realno) bi ti dala takemu projektu (lestvica od 0 - 100%)? In zakaj raje vidiš, da se sw patenti "simptomatično zdravijo" - zakaj se ne postavi zakonodaje, ki bi take mahinacije preprečevala? Zakaj trmasto vztrajanje pri predlogu, ki ga podpira par korporacij, nihče drug pa ne? To sem te spraševal že prej - pa ni blo odgovora.
Daj mi povej nekaj - koliko možnosti (realno) bi ti dala takemu projektu (lestvica od 0 - 100%)? In zakaj raje vidiš, da se sw patenti "simptomatično zdravijo" - zakaj se ne postavi zakonodaje, ki bi take mahinacije preprečevala? Zakaj trmasto vztrajanje pri predlogu, ki ga podpira par korporacij, nihče drug pa ne? To sem te spraševal že prej - pa ni blo odgovora.
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world,
he is responsible for everything he does.
[J.P.Sartre]
he is responsible for everything he does.
[J.P.Sartre]
borchi ::
lahko nardimo en real-life test.
marija se poda iskat pravico na sodišče za nek "dvoklik patent", nekdo izmed OS cepetavčkov/cmer pa je pred nalogo patentirat nekaj.
kdo ma po vašem mnenju več možnosti?
marija se poda iskat pravico na sodišče za nek "dvoklik patent", nekdo izmed OS cepetavčkov/cmer pa je pred nalogo patentirat nekaj.
kdo ma po vašem mnenju več možnosti?
l'jga
Vredno ogleda ...
| Tema | Ogledi | Zadnje sporočilo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tema | Ogledi | Zadnje sporočilo | |
| » | Državljan D: Kibernetsko vojskovanje - Slovenija, Evropa, svetOddelek: Novice / NWO | 6621 (5254) | Gregor P |
| » | Cryptoparty Slovenija 2016Oddelek: Novice / Zasebnost | 4471 (2728) | DomenS |
| » | V Kiberpipi ta teden: ACTA in SOPA, VIP z Ireno FondaOddelek: Novice / Kiberpipa | 4643 (3856) | digitalcek |
| » | Kiberpipa: Patentiranje računalniško izvedenih izumovOddelek: Problemi človeštva | 2980 (2871) | Eschelon |
| » | Okrogla miza: Patentiranje računalniško izvedenih izumovOddelek: Novice / Industrijska lastnina | 3854 (3329) | Suli |