27 Dec
2019
27 Dec
'19
6:07 a.m.
tor 2019-12-26 klockan 17:09 -0500 skrev Paul Koning via cctalk:
Patent's is an invention in itself, including the idea that you can hit
someone on their head (or threaten them with shutting them out of of
trading with you or your allies) until they agrees to accept your idea
of what a patent is and what is patented.
It is political idea which is necessary in an industrialised world
while it is a a not so liberal idea.
Remember the navigation laws and how they could be used against someone
? The british government used navigation laws against indian cotton and
weaving industry in the 1700 and 1800s so that Manchester woven cotton
and wool became cheaper on the world market than indian products even
in india. American controlled media today decides what is viewable on
the world markets cinemas - producers of american controlled film
productions pays cinema owners to get their films showed (and
preventing the competitiors.)
On Dec 26,
2019, at 12:23 PM, Fred Cisin via cctalk <
cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
And, a Happy Humbug to you, too!
Fleas Navy Dad and Yo new huevo! spellling?
The rules have changed over time. Whether that's by bureaucratic
fiat or by changes to the law I'm not sure.
For example, at one point software wasn't considered patentable,
which meant Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman had to twist themselves into
some contortions to patent the RSA algorithm. It was done by
describing it as a device, I think. Not long afterwards, software
patents became possible. The Xerox work may have been in the earlier
period.
Some companies weren't as serious about patents as others; I worked
for a startup around 1997 that didn't care to patent anything, which
was really rather stupid of them. But large companies like Xerox do
tend to understand their options here.
paul I^@^Ym not familiar with U.S. law but didn^@^Yt
Xerox ^@^Xown^@^Y
the patent(s) t$ technology? Again to my knowledge Microsoft and
Apple both ^@^Xappropriated^@^Y and/or ^@^Xmisapproriated^@^Y,
depending on your point-of-view, this exact technology!
Xerox took the position that ideas like that were not patentable,
and could not be hoarded for financial gain. It is not clear to me
whether that was a truly altruistic position, or a tacit
acknowledgement that it was resistance is futile.