Yeah you're wrong on every point. That means you're trying.
... says the guy who cherry-picked and only responded to a few points here and there. You're conceding that I'm right on all the other ones, yes? For example, did you follow that link to Google Patents and see all of the thousands and thousands of issued European software patents? Or are you still a "denier==terrorist" per your signature?
>>that means that the only way to really protect your business software.
Yeah, you protect your business by providing excellent software which is itself a natural barrier to entrance.
I notice you quoted me out of context and even modified the quote. Let's see the whole thing:
... that means that the only way to really protect your business software, other than patents, is to require proprietary formats that aren't interoperable. And that's bad for consumers.
You completely disregarded the entire point about proprietary formats, which are bad for consumers. It's almost like you don't actually care about the public... a funny position for someone allegedly arguing against giant corporations.
If you look at the world of IDEs, people have very strong preferences for one over the other. There are no software patents involved protecting anyone. In fact, even giving away the stuff for free is NOT enough to make enough people switch from IntelliJ to Eclipse, for example, to put IntelliJ out of business. All with no software patents.
And what do those have? Proprietary formats! Just like I said, and you excised from my quote. Most people recognize that those are bad, and would prefer to freely be able to port their work between competing products.
That's a figure from the patent, it's not what the patent covers. The only part of the patent that has legal weight are the claims
The information provided in the drawings is exactly isomorphic tot he information provided in the claims. Patent lawyers know people have a hard time reading claims (by design.. patent language is a product of a priesthood which self-consciously seeks to protect itself by bartering in obscuritanism ) and like to make this argument also. If you read the claims and look at the diagrams, they are describing the same set of affairs, encryption keys and all.
Translation: "You're right, Theaetetus. I was wrong when I claimed they were patenting a flow chart. They're actually patenting an implementation recited by the claims, and I don't know how to read those, so I was confused and pointed to the block diagram instead."
No problem, and I'm happy to help you learn to read patent claims. They're actually not confusing at all, if you take your time. Honestly, the only words you may need to learn are "comprising" and "consisting".
You're just undermining your position by revealing that a humdrum and natural application of encryption keys (what else are they for except exchanging information securely over a public network) is now off limits to everyone but Dropbox.
Nope, I'm tearing apart your allegation that the patent prevents all file-sharing. You've now moved those goalposts to "a natural application of encryption keys" which certainly wasn't anywhere in your original post. Don't worry, we can all see the holes in the turf from where they used to be and will avoid tripping over them.
Maybe you'll eventually even move the goalposts to what the patent actually covers, rather than claiming it covers the world... Oh, wait:
To wit: there is no set of classes, no interaction between any objects and no alternative architecture of any kind which is permitted by this patent.
You're now claiming this patent covers any "interaction between objects".
Oooookay. Well, give you credit for doubling down. Not sure if it's going to actually convince anyone, though.