From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 21:14:30 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B65B1065676 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:14:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from mail.unitedinsong.com.au (202-172-126-254.cpe.qld-1.comcen.com.au [202.172.126.254]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C7F8FC30 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:14:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rock_on_the_web@comcen.com.au) Received: from [192.168.0.199] (unknown [192.168.0.199]) by mail.unitedinsong.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04BFB4379 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:15:11 +1000 (EST) From: Da Rock To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20081215204726.GJ60187@kokopelli.hydra> References: <20081212181258.GE36348@kokopelli.hydra> <20081212203202.H4803@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <20081212150228.520ad7f8@scorpio> <20081212212552.GF37185@kokopelli.hydra> <1229230200.18610.87.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081215065327.GM5527@kokopelli.hydra> <1229325063.8820.5.camel@laptop1.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <49462e82.0JabFKZe33ZkdtYT%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <1229344057.1647.49.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> <20081215204726.GJ60187@kokopelli.hydra> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:14:26 +1000 Message-Id: <1229375666.1647.67.camel@laptop2.herveybayaustralia.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Why FreeBSD not popular on hardware vendors X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:14:30 -0000 On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 13:47 -0700, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:27:30PM +1000, Da Rock wrote: > > > > If you have done your own research then the algorithms wouldn't > > necessarily be the same- they'd nearly certainly be different, wouldn't > > they? So isn't that the basis for the patent? A patent is a registration > > of an idea. Two different ideas can still arrive at the same conclusion. > > Patents are often about methods, not algorithms. In fact, there's > supposedly a restriction against algorithms being patented -- though of > course lawmakers and people working at the patent office don't seem to > know what an algorithm is, so algorithms do get patented all the time. > > Anyway . . . as it happens, patenting a "method" provides far more broad > power than patenting an algorithm, anyway, in practice. That's one of > the reason (software) patents are so damaging. > I think I might take it up with my lawyer if I want to do something like this then. Seems like they've got it all wrapped up... My conclusion is that "it sucks and blows - something that shouldn't be physically possible". But that seems to be life atm :( (globally, not mine)