Not exactly. The 14th amendment was passed in 1868, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitutionIn 1819 the courts basically granted corporations most of the same rights as an individual including the rights provided by the 14th amendment.
Robodini Q&A
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:51 pm
Re: Robodini Q&A
-
- Posts: 20943
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 7:30 pm
- Location: Birmingham, AL
Re: Robodini Q&A
Sorry, your choice of words is poor. "He has done what no other programmer could do" should be rewritten to "he has done what most other programmers REFUSE to do." There is a HUGE difference between the two statements...gotogo wrote:seems to me that your apology is as phony as they come... to say so much about what you did is a blatant attempt to destroy houdini reputation. Even still as much as I don't like Robert he has done what no other programmer could do. you can re his work but you have no idea how to make your own engine as good as houdini so instead you chop it up... you have divulged a lot of information about houdini publicly without regard to robert when you could have had a private conversation but you chose to openly disclose what you done. Jealousy runs rapid here. I hope you can be sued.
-
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:51 pm
Re: Robodini Q&A
Jose, it's perfectly ethical to publish paper copies of public domain books and sell those copies to the public. Some companies do that. I totally agree with you that the GPL on a derivative cannot annul the public domain status of the earlier source.Sure, sure, even trade with it. Which is not very ethical, but legal.
But the GPL never annul the PUBLIC DOMAIN.
-
- Posts: 2273
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:50 am
Re: Robodini Q&A
Since obviously you did not look at it I repeat the link to the list of patents covering H264. As you can see many of them are in the US.bob wrote: I live in the US, where patent law does NOT explicitly cover computer software. There are dozens of examples of case law where software patents were thrown out, because the US congress did not consider software (since it didn't exist when patent laws were written.)
What part of the world are YOU from? Copyrights on computer software, on the other hand, are alive, well, and have been enforced many times.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc ... c-att1.pdf
-
- Posts: 3226
- Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 10:31 pm
- Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina
Re: Robodini Q&A
If software was unpatentable in the US, I do not believe that the Defend Innovation website would exist. Nor would there exist a department called "Computer Architecture, Software & Information Security" in the US Patent and Trademark Office.bob wrote:I live in the US, where patent law does NOT explicitly cover computer software. There are dozens of examples of case law where software patents were thrown out, because the US congress did not consider software (since it didn't exist when patent laws were written.)Michel wrote:On what planet are you living? Software patents are very much alive.bob wrote: In the US as well. In that you simply can't patent software any longer. This changed at least 30 years ago. The only real protection here is copyright, which can extend to hardware since EEPROMS can be copied, which is copying a binary, which is copyrighted.
The state of the art video codec H264 is protected by 1000s of patents.
http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc ... c-att1.pdf
Just one obvious example.
What part of the world are YOU from? Copyrights on computer software, on the other hand, are alive, well, and have been enforced many times.
From what I have read, software patents in the US are alive and well. At least well enough for many to protest against the granting of such patents.
-
- Posts: 3557
- Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:02 pm
Re: Robodini Q&A.
Yes, this is the problem I have with all of this. Some authors branded villains, others as saints. How can some so-called "original engine" authors take the moral high ground when the above is true ? There is just so much hypocrisy about.mcostalba wrote: ..... You should have a better clue of from where the first 5 top engines come from. All of them, and I mean all of them, have reached top ELO using ideas RE from somewhere, or directly or indirectly, through an open source built with heavy use of RE. And the current top engine, that in this case is the offended part, even takes the crown and is the king of the "helped by RE" somewhere in his genealogy tree.
Of course there are engine authors who do not study code of other engines at all. Big respect to those authors.
-
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:51 pm
Re: Robodini Q&A
Can an invention be embodied in software? I say, yes. Then there should be nothing wrong with software patents.From what I have read, software patents in the US are alive and well.
-
- Posts: 1476
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:51 pm
Re: Robodini Q&A
Dear Prof. Robert Hyatt, could you please clarify what it is that Robert Houdart did that most other programmers REFUSE to do? Do most programmers refuse to use public domain code in their commercial programs?"He has done what no other programmer could do" should be rewritten to "he has done what most other programmers REFUSE to do."
-
- Posts: 2273
- Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:50 am
Re: Robodini Q&A
The problem with software patents is that they stiffle innovation.Can an invention be embodied in software? I say, yes. Then there should be nothing wrong with software patents.
Creation of software has a very low barrier of entry. A smart kid in Bangladesh can do it. Software patents artificially raise this barrier. It would be impossible for said smart kid to create a new video codec since he would have to read 1000s of patents covering all kinds of trivialities. Moreover he would have to hire a patent lawyer to do this since only a patent lawyer is qualified to interpret patents.
The patent system was created to stimulate innovation by giving the inventor
a temporary monopoly in return for publishing his invention. While one
may argue that this works to some extent for industrial inventions, it clearly does not work for software.
-
- Posts: 5106
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:27 pm
Re: Robodini Q&A
I do not believe it works even for industrial inventions.Michel wrote:The problem with software patents is that they stiffle innovation.Can an invention be embodied in software? I say, yes. Then there should be nothing wrong with software patents.
Creation of software has a very low barrier of entry. A smart kid in Bangladesh can do it. Software patents artificially raise this barrier. It would be impossible for said smart kid to create a new video codec since he would have to read 1000s of patents covering all kinds of trivialities. Moreover he would have to hire a patent lawyer to do this since only a patent lawyer is qualified to interpret patents.
The patent system was created to stimulate innovation by giving the inventor
a temporary monopoly in return for publishing his invention. While one
may argue that this works to some extent for industrial inventions, it clearly does not work for software.
Capital punishment would be more effective as a preventive measure if it were administered prior to the crime.