You know what's BS about that, don't get me wrong, no fault of Escorts, it's the idiots at the patent office to blame, but the majority of those patents they own are probably purely software related for controlling the internal processor.
Originally Posted by Obsidian
I just don't feel you should be able to own a patent on a frigging algorithm.
Its nothing more than a set of instructions to tell the processor what to do and how to behave. How can you patent steps or instructions? I'll further explain my point here...
I'll guess most people here have likely never looked at actual computer source code. If you have it was probably huge and very confusing to you. I'll write a very simple little Java program here and present it to you in actual source code format (hopefully the BB software doesn't butcher the sheet out of it)...
If you saved that source code I just wrote above as a basic text file named RDnet.txt while writing the code, then renamed the file RDnet.txt to RDnet.java and ran it through a Java compiler it would spit out a second file named RDnet.class and if you were to then click on the file RDnet.java (providing you have Java installed, assume you do if you have a compiler) Java would run on your computer, a little window would open up and display on your screen "Radar Detector Dot Net" and an option button under it. Click on the option button and it would then say "Rocks" with another option button. Click that option button and it closes the window out because of the final step telling your computer to "exit" you see above.
// Filename: RDnet.java
// Author: Esoterica
// Date: Feb 26, 2008
public class Comments
public static void main(String args)
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "Radar Detector Dot Net") ;
JOptionPane.showMessageDialog(null, "Rocks") ;
System.exit (0) ;
The thing of it is, as it stands now I could patent that source code above. Its ridiculous, someone else could write their own program that does the same end process but in different steps to get there (more or less elaborate depending on the programmer).
They just shouldn't be able to do that.
I want everyone to be able to follow me on this so just in case I lost any on the above example I'll simplify it further...
Lets say I asked everyone here to write out for us in step by step sequence the actual steps you would take to write and mail a letter (well, everyone except HappyA$$, we know from theStaton how he sends letters).
At first you may think thats pointless, there's only one way to write a letter and send it to someone!
But this isn't exactly true when you look at how everyone else will write out their steps (algorithm). Example...
I would say:
- 3) Insert letter in envelope and seal
- 5) Put letter in mail box
- 6) Lift Flag on box to alert mail carrier
Yet someone else might say:
- 4) Insert letter in envelope and seal
- 5) Lift Flag on box to alert mail carrier
- 6) Put letter in mail box
10 more people here would likely write out the steps in yet 10 more different ways, but all achieving the same final result.
In the end theStaton gets his torn letter missing the parts Happya$$ was supposed to of sent him no matter which steps you take. All it is is a simple set of instructions telling a person in this case how to mail a letter.
A processor algorithm is the same thing, but instead of a person, it's telling the processor what steps to take to achieve the outcome you desired.
You couldn't go into the patent office and patent your instruction steps for how to mail someone a letter, yet you can go in there and get a patent for telling the computer processor how to go about displaying "Radar Detectors Dot Net Rocks" on someones computer screen.
Its the same exact thing with the processor algorithm, exactly the same thing, how can one possibly be legal and the other not to file a patent on?