This would be akin to Gucci telling eBay it needs to police all of its auctions, rather than Gucci itself being required to police eBay's auctions.
It's a bullshit attempt to shift the cost of policing users to an inappropriate entity IMHO.
This is an anlogy fail, because this is exactly what happened in France: An upper court decided that it is eBay's responsibility to either ensure that they do no longer act as a platform to sell couterfeited materials, or to stop selling certain fashion labels (in this case: Louis Vitton, Dior, etc.)
Those of us who still participate in discussion forums via Email or Usenet have
upgraded their email and usenet readers and do not experience those limits.
You've apparently missed the point completely. Twitter and similar sites have a character limit on messages.
Which is the problematic part. Totally unnecessary today, only still used to create some hype.
You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.
Illegal in the EU. You see the pattern?
Of course, the 3 strikes idea is about censorship. Anybody who thought otherwise?
A very good question. Or to turn the argument around, if any nonobvious process can be patented, could I patent all new mathematic discoveries?
Nope. Two ways to attack it:
First, 35 USC 101 requires that the process be "useful". Courts have construed this to mean that the process must have a non-abstract output that changes the physical world in some way.
OK - but this means that (pure) software patents do not match this test. Software does not change the physical world is some way (except if part of an specific apparatus, which - I agree - is patentable).
Second, 35 USC 101 also requires that you invent it. It could be argued that the discovery already existed, you just didn't know about it. E equaled M*C^2 long before Einstein came along, just no one knew.
This is physics, not math. I could point you to many software patents that try to patent math - especially in the categories cryptography, code redundancy, and signal processing. All those algorithms are pure math. Obviously, the math was already there before somebody discovered it.
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
35 USC 101 expressly authorizes granting of patents on a new and useful process.
OP stated explicitly *all* patentable subject matter. I gave a counterexample; QED.
What process cannot be expressed as math? Accordingly, what is the meaning of the term "process", if math can't be patented, but processes can?
A very good question. Or to turn the argument around, if any nonobvious process can be patented, could I patent all new mathematic discoveries?
Any argument loose enough to classify algorithms as mathematics is necessarily loose enough to classify *all* patentable subject matter as "mathematics".
What about all physical devices? Tell me your isomorphism to bring them to math. Note: it's not the description which is patented, but the described object.
I would not object to software patents if they actually provided the complete functional source code in the patent. You want a patent, you provide full disclosure.
Only if I could implement the same mechanism using a different source code without infringing your patent. Otherwise a source code listing does no add any value to the society.
But you know that ideas are not patentable?
"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne