Difference between revisions of "Talk:Current events"
(New section: Не плохой ресурс, но все же ...) |
(New section: Google PageRank Patent) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Или его просто удаляют. | Или его просто удаляют. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Google PageRank Patent == | ||
| + | |||
| + | New criteria for restricting the scope of what the US Patent Office considers patent-worthy poses a threat to numerous software patents, including Google's famed PageRank. | ||
| + | |||
| + | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| + | Editor's Note: Losing the PageRank patent could be troubling for Google, but the broader scope of patent reform-something Google has championed otherwise-is intended to protect innovators from the itchy trigger finger of an overly litigious society. What you you think? Good idea? Let us know in the comments section. | ||
| + | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ||
| + | |||
| + | Google climbed past a morass of ineffective search engines when it arrived on the Internet. Its devotion to the most relevant possible solution for a given query quickly made it the de facto search choice as millions of people shifted their browsing habits from walled garden content to the broader World Wide Web. | ||
| + | The essential and much-discussed PageRank technology holds a patent, a common legal protection sought by software developers small and large. Some have claimed software patents affect far too broad a scope of potential innovation, leading to lawsuits where a patent owner claims damages by multiple companies. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Those on the losing end of such suits end up paying for what they argue are obvious and non-original concepts. That could change with a shift in the way the USPTO looks at software patents, the Patently-O blog on patent law said. | ||
| + | A series of cases may remake the software industry, all the way to the top where Google and other companies reside: | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the most recent of these three (cases)—the currently pending en banc Bilski appeal—the Office takes the position that process inventions generally are unpatentable unless they "result in a physical transformation of an article" or are "tied to a particular machine." | ||
| + | Patently-O sees Google's PageRank, the patent for which is owned by Stanford University, as failing the first part of the test, as generating scores isn't a physical transformation. The second part proves troubling given recent decisions made by the USPTO in a couple of other cases, not only for PageRank but other Google patents too. | ||
| + | "Google might have thought that the patent system would surely protect new technological developments that are highly creative and socially valuable. The PTO’s new position proves that view mistaken," Patently-O said. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ...brought to you by ihav.net | ||
Revision as of 06:53, 25 July 2008
AaronR: Note that the image links I put on the "Robocode Documentation" pages are temporary. I will replace these with uploaded images later. My first priority is to add all documentations. Second priority is "goal plate" the pages. But anybody is welcome to replace the links with uploaded images. ;-) --Flemming N. Larsen 11:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I wasn't sure what pattern you are following. I was going to update this page anyway, and I need to remove one of the items from the list to make room for a new item, so I'll remove the Robocode Documentation one and let you work in peace. ;) --
AaronR18:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Contents
News section, or the lack of such
I am wondering.. where do we have a News section? I should at least want a page about news, which again contains a link with "Robocode News", and other people should provide links to interesting stuff on the News page for other matters. So, where should we put it? --Fnl 22:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right here! I believe that was the point of this page. At present, it only contains the contents of {{CurrentEventsShort}}, but that isn't mandatory (the template version is just a summary of events for the Main Page, hence the name CurrentEventsShort). « AaronR « Talk « 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- This page now has a separate list from the Main Page, so you can add all the news you want to it. =) By the way, does anyone else think it might be a good idea to move this page into the project namespace (i.e. RoboWiki:Current events)? « AaronR « Talk « 21:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous edits
Yikes, I see that this page is getting hit by a constant flow of wikispam. I'll be turning off anonymous edits (finally) soon to combat this. --Voidious 15:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes... please do so soon. Gah... --Rednaxela 21:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Well then... this is just getting out of hand... I've reverted spam 7 times today, killing a total of 17 spam edits... --Rednaxela 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Не плохой ресурс, но все же ...
Не плохой форум, но очень часто сообщения находятся без ответа.
Или его просто удаляют.
Google PageRank Patent
New criteria for restricting the scope of what the US Patent Office considers patent-worthy poses a threat to numerous software patents, including Google's famed PageRank.
Editor's Note: Losing the PageRank patent could be troubling for Google, but the broader scope of patent reform-something Google has championed otherwise-is intended to protect innovators from the itchy trigger finger of an overly litigious society. What you you think? Good idea? Let us know in the comments section.
Google climbed past a morass of ineffective search engines when it arrived on the Internet. Its devotion to the most relevant possible solution for a given query quickly made it the de facto search choice as millions of people shifted their browsing habits from walled garden content to the broader World Wide Web. The essential and much-discussed PageRank technology holds a patent, a common legal protection sought by software developers small and large. Some have claimed software patents affect far too broad a scope of potential innovation, leading to lawsuits where a patent owner claims damages by multiple companies.
Those on the losing end of such suits end up paying for what they argue are obvious and non-original concepts. That could change with a shift in the way the USPTO looks at software patents, the Patently-O blog on patent law said.
A series of cases may remake the software industry, all the way to the top where Google and other companies reside:
In the most recent of these three (cases)—the currently pending en banc Bilski appeal—the Office takes the position that process inventions generally are unpatentable unless they "result in a physical transformation of an article" or are "tied to a particular machine." Patently-O sees Google's PageRank, the patent for which is owned by Stanford University, as failing the first part of the test, as generating scores isn't a physical transformation. The second part proves troubling given recent decisions made by the USPTO in a couple of other cases, not only for PageRank but other Google patents too. "Google might have thought that the patent system would surely protect new technological developments that are highly creative and socially valuable. The PTO’s new position proves that view mistaken," Patently-O said.
...brought to you by ihav.net
