| Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. [message #180199 is a reply to message #180198] |
Thu, 24 January 2013 21:35   |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma:
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 1/24/2013 3:48 PM, osmium wrote:
> "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 "concepts" have been patented. The RSA patent is, for instance, an
algorithm. There is no code associated with the patent, and of course,
no logic drawings.
And then there are, of course, the "look and feel" patents, i.e. the
unlock slider on Apple I-Phones. Yes, Apple DOES have a patent on it,
and courts have found it is enforceable. Again, it's a concept - no
code or logic diagrams associated with it.
There are many, many others.
I guess they just have better patent attorneys.
>> 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.
>
>
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]