Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Sep 2008 23:23 UTC
The US patent might be a bit daft, especially when it comes to software, but it does offer some interesting insights into what crazy things the big companies might be working on for future products. One such patent emerged today: Microsoft applied in 2005 (and was granted in 2008) a patent which describes how different windows may be coloured differently, or that they may have different transparency settings. This sounds a bit weird, but it may actually prove to be quite useful.
Thread beginning with comment 329688
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Please RTFP before jumping into conclusions!
by Soulbender on Tue 9th Sep 2008 09:28
in reply to "RE: Please RTFP before jumping into conclusions!"
Member since:2005-08-18
RE[3]: Please RTFP before jumping into conclusions!
by abraxas on Tue 9th Sep 2008 14:51
in reply to "RE[2]: Please RTFP before jumping into conclusions!"
Member since:2005-07-07
Inventions are patentable, which means a specific implementation. Ideas are not patentable. Methods can be simple ideas. They are not patentable. Don't be fooled by the perversion that is the present system. It wasn't always like this. I agree that a new implementation's specific methods are patentable but methods alone cannot be. They must be implemented.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-07
I'm perfectly fine with patenting "methods", as the real danger is when a "concept" gets patented.
The problem is that methods aren't supposed to be patentable just as concepts aren't supposed to be patentable. Specific implementations are patentable and was the original intent of the patent office. What we have now is a gross perversion of patents.