Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 6427039" data-attributes="member: 8835">I believe I did.That is a short-sightedness on your governments part.  PBX's are dead.  Now it's VOIP which is just IP packets traveling through switches, routers and firewalls.  Everything is software and the devices are dumb without it.Now it is fine if you guys just wanted a patent to cover your industry, but that's not necessarily the best restriction for all patent ideas.He was a patent whore as much as anybody.  Now if his goal was to patent magnetic fields or something fundamental, that'd be as bogus as patenting a gene.  Nature should not be patentable.  If he wanted to patent the configuration of magnets and coils that cause an AC motor to spin, that's probably legit.It's like you didn't read my whole post.  I too also agree some things should not be patentable.  But I also see where some things WERE a clever idea (like Tapping) that were only obvious after the fact.Conditional Jumps?  You mean GOTOS, the "thou shalt not use these" of advanced programming languages?in a lower level language, they are inherently obvious as in if you are following a set of sequential instructions (having to be sequential by nature of it's a Computer) and you write a comparison, it is inherently obvious that you'd need a GOTO command as part of that to branch out to other parts of code.  Thus it would have failed the "non-obvious" test.  Anybody inventing machine language/Assembly would have figured that out.As I noted before, I don't think Nature should be patentable.  Gene patents where the researcher simply identified a naturally occurring useful gene in a test subject is bogus.  Michael Crichton's (sp) last book was pretty definitive on the problems with that.</blockquote>

Verification