| |||||||||||||
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)Posted Nov 15, 2012 19:51 UTC (Thu) by JanC_ (guest, #34940)In reply to: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) by dlang Parent article: Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired)
I would define it as hardware where the command set and interfaces to the hardware are documented and available to the general public. This would mean that the OS running on a general PC may be covered, but a driver accessing proprietary hardware (for example, the NVIDIA driver) would not be covered, but the ATI driver would be (since ATI publishes the interface for their cards)That would also mean that it would be in the interest of hardware companies to reverse engineer & publish the specs of their competitor's hardware (or pay a 3rd party to do so), as that would grant them free access to the same technology, and in turn that would give open source developers proper specs to almost all hardware...? :)
(Log in to post comments)
Let’s Limit the Effect of Software Patents, Since We Can’t Eliminate Them (Wired) Posted Nov 15, 2012 20:58 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
reverse engineering cannot produce the full specs for a system.
It can produce specs that are 'good enough' in practice, but even theoretically, it can't tell the difference between 'undefined result that happens to be X' and 'deliberalte calculation that results in X'
So the documentation I am referring to would need to be produced by the company producing the hardware (or by a 3rd party on their behalf)
|
|||||||||||||