Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #2903

Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid.

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/24/2013 5:49 PM, osmium wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle" wrote:
>
>> 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@attglobal.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.
>
> But there *are* logic drawings in the RSA patent, I just looked at it.  This
> is an instance of what I mentioned earlier, sometimes you can shake things
> around and convert a concept to a patent.  That's exactly what happened
> here.
>

I looked at it also.  What you call "logical drawings" are just an 
algorithm in visual form.

>> 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.
>
> I'm quite sure that Apple has what is called a "design" patent; a real
> patent is a letters patent.  The shape of a Coke bottle is a design patent.
> (Or was.  I don't know if that has been influenced by Disney's work on
> extending Mickey Mouse's lifetime out to infinity.)  The xerography patent
> is over and done with, yet Mickey Mouse is still paying vast rewards.  Some
> of those rewards are distributed to our congresspersons.
>

It is a "look and feel" patent.  Period.


I guess these companies have better patent attorneys than you do.

-- 
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:10 -0800
  Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Martin Musatov <marty.musatov@gmail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:15 -0800
  Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 07:21 -0500
    Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:27 +0000
      Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 15:18 -0500
        Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-01-24 14:48 -0600
          Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 16:35 -0500
            Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. "osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2013-01-24 16:49 -0600
              Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2013-01-24 20:03 -0500
          Re: Information Theoretically Secure requirements scheme for improving and implementing intelligent encryption requiring human intervention or decision to be valid. marty.musatov@gmail.com - 2014-02-09 10:31 -0800

csiph-web