Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : NCDR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (676)	6/10/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: lindend	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1440

Art, You DO NOT patent software. I personally have three software patents from my days at IBM. And I have another 12 or so DVD software patents on file right now. patents.uspto.gov patents.uspto.gov patents.uspto.gov Ask Bill Gates how much software he has patented. I have several friends at Microsoft and they patent a lot. A quick search at the USPTO shows 890 patents assigned to Microsoft. You clearly are wrong here. All smart software companies patent their solutions (if they have legit software). Lets review your record: 1. You say StockMaker was not compensated and they are. 2. You say that software isn't patented, and it is in fact one of the hottest patented areas. I'm giving you one last opportunity to re-evaluate your claims on NCDR's exclusivity relationship with Sarnoff. Is everything you said legit there also?

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (676)	6/10/1999 10:48:00 AM
From: Mark Marcellus	Respond to of 1440

Mark, Sorry, but obviously you don't know anything about software Arthur - It is a time honored tactic amongst stock touts to accuse skeptics of ignorance, remain vague on product specifics, and suggest that true believers in the company should be willing to accept claims of superiority upon faith. I would hope that you don't fall into that category. Also, in my experience, companies who are reluctant to share any technical details on how their product works almost always have something to hide. We'll see if that's true about NCDR. Regarding patents vs. copyright, my ignorance was about the specifics of the purported products being offered. I foolishly assumed that if this technology does exist, the differentiating factor would have to be hardware, not software. The reason I assumed this is that the types of algorithms being hinted at have been around for a long time, and have been extensively developed. Also, as has been pointed out, companies can and do patent software all the time. It's really the only way to protect one's intellectual property rights. Even if it's the algorithms which are the key to this product, patent protection is still appropriate. The risk of lost sales to piracy is insignificant compared to the potential loss if the key algorithms used fall into the hands of others through reverse engineering, disgruntled employees, etc. Are you aware that copyright is useless in protecting the algorithms used in the software? If you try to patent it, you have to provide the whole code. You're also wrong on this. If you're going to patent an algorithm, you are essentially patenting an idea or method. You're not required to provide the source code for all the software. You have to explain the idea and demonstrate it's application. You can provide code which demonstrates the essential concept but leaves out other aspects of the software not relevant to the patent application. Perhaps you were given misleading information by the folks at NCDR?

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (676)	6/11/1999 9:23:00 AM
From: BMC	Respond to of 1440

>>>>>>>>>> If you try to patent it, you have to provide the whole code. <<<<<<<<<< Nope. Not true at all. I've got a SW patent, and one on the way. I've never had to provide any source. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ask Bill Gates how much software he has patented. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Probably none, but patenting software wasn't all that big - it probably didn't exist at the time he was coding. I doubt Bill has written a line of production code in 15 years or more.