Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] EVO status...was: (open-source like hardware)
From: Marek Peteraj (petemar_AT_kiwwi.sk)
Date: Wed Jan 16 2002 - 13:26:31 EET
On Wed, 2002-01-16 at 01:20, Paul Davis wrote:
> >
> >> as i said, unix-like operating systems have done disk readahead for almost
> >> as long as unix-like operating systems have existed (and multics
> >> before them, i believe). we cannot allow nemesys/conexant to steal
> >> this technology by pretending it was invented explicitly for audio. if
> >> the USPTO doesn't understand this (and they probably {d,w}on't),
> >
> >Why not?
>
> because in general, one can characterize a great deal of human
> invention as the process of taking an idea from one domain and
> applying it to another.
It's important to know whether this is a legal definition or just a
decision of the USPTO(see also sect.282 US pat. act: presumption of
validity). Would be useful to check on precedents set by previous courts
decisions..
almost every software patent is covered by
> this description (those that are not probably deserve their awards
> IMHO). the patent office has shown absolute willingness to issue
> patents to people who take a technique applied to problem domain A and
> use it in problem domain B. despite it being simple to show a complete
> abstract isomorphism between the two techniques, the fact that one of
> them is about operating systems and files in general and the other is
> about audio and samplers and musical response times convinces the
> patent office time and time again that real innovation has
> occured. the idea of an abstract algorithm doesn't seem to strike the
> USPTO as a compelling idea. so when someone figures out a way to
> preload part of an x-ray image so that its quicker for a doctor to
> display them, or preload the start of a video stream to help with
> response to the "play" button, they will accept these as legitimate
> innovation-by-crossing-domain-boundaries.
>
> i think this is idiotic, but its absolutely, undeniably the way they
> see the world.
Seems it's time to change that... Don't ask me how :)
>
> what nemesys/conexant did was clever, and good. it was not, and should
> never have been patentable.
I guess fraunhofer was much more creative with it's MP3(from techincal
point of view).
Marek
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 16 2002 - 13:11:01 EET