FUDforum
Fast Uncompromising Discussions. FUDforum will get your users talking.

Home » Imported messages » comp.lang.php » Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.
Show: Today's Messages :: Polls :: Message Navigator
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180198 is a reply to message #180197] Thu, 24 January 2013 20:48 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
osmium is currently offline  osmium
Messages: 2
Registered: January 2013
Karma:
Junior Member
"Jerry Stuckle" wrote:

> On 1/24/2013 12:27 PM, unruh wrote:
>> On 2013-01-24, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On 1/24/2013 12:10 AM, Martin Musatov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The techniques all listed above and the intellectual property rights
>>>> associated with them are (C) Copyright 2013 Martin Musatov. They may
>>>> be used or adapted by any entity provided partial credit is provided
>>>> to Martin Musatov and is documented as well as when this occurs in
>>>> conjunction with a non-public donation to a charity equal to the value
>>>> of the contribution.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And not worth the bandwidth they took to process.
>>>
>>> BTW - you can copyright text (including code), but you cannot copyright
>>> a concept. If your concept were worth anything, anyone could use it at
>>> any time without any credit to you or any payment to anyone.
>>>
>>> If you want to protect a concept you need to patent it.
>>
>> Except you cannot patent concepts either. You can patent things or
>> processes or designs, but not concepts or ideas.
>> And you cannot copyright "intellectual property". The category
>> "intellectual property" refers to things which a copyrightable,
>> patentable or trademarkable. It is not a category which has any
>> independent definition beyond the definition of those categories.
>> It is an entirely artificial concept with the word "property" used in a
>> purely mataphoric sense.
>>>
>
> In the United States you can, anyway. I don't know about the rest of the
> world.

You can what? Can patent a concept? He just explained that you can't!!
I know, because I tried it, and our team of crack patent attorneys said that
you can't. The things you patent must be more tangible than a concept.
Like a set of logic drawings, microcode, a program. I have patents on both
hardware and microcode and one of the best ideas I ever had was, it was
explained to me, was *just* a concept. Sorry, I didn't get the dollar that
was the standard award by a corporation to the inventor.

> Many computer algorithms are patented. For instance, the RSA algorithm is
> U.S. Patent 4,405,829. I don't see that as any different than what the op
> is proposing.

My server does not have enough history so I can see what was
proposed/asserted/blabbed about, so it is possible the
notion/concept/whatever/ could be *converted* into something that could be
patented.
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: Re: Where to Find Pipe Information?
Next Topic: Stats comp.lang.php (last 7 days)
Goto Forum:
  

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ]

Current Time: Wed Nov 27 20:27:57 GMT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04620 seconds