Anonymous algo
- This topic has 26 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
that’s why as soon as there is innovation, hundreds of patents are filed
… which will not work with software; as soon as the copier changes the variable names, any judge – the source code at hand – will readily tell that it is no copy-right infringement.
(I have been there in a lawsuit with 20M at stake)
Sadly, no judge or aiding expert will judge the functionality of the program. “It could coincidentally work out the same, plus its goal is obvious” (in our case, gain $).
In your country ?
Normally in France, it is protected by the law article L112-2,L 111-2, .. but i never met the case personally
The law is there all right (Holland), but it is too difficult to maintain. I think we also have stories of copied books; they names of the personages are changed, and suddenly it is not a copied book.
Software is really crazy, already because so much money can be involved. I work on it for 300000 hours (you read that right) and next my software is stolen, hence copied, and all what it takes is make a nice generator which changes the variable names (read those tweets you came up with) and a judge will say “this is clearly not a copy”.
Any fool obviously will see it is a copy, but technically it is not any more.Something else (but possibly it was said already) : If you want to patent software anyway, then this has to be done before it has been visible to the public. This is for obvious reasons.
Any my personal idea about filing patents : Better don’t in these very-public-internet days, because you will bring good ideas to others, and they just change a little and there goes your “patent” (read : unique idea). It is better to obfuscate things so much, that nobody will understand (again read those tweets to see what the thief all does to steal for $).1 user thanked author for this post.
Compromise / fairness would be to make an assessment of how much of the original code / strategy remains (changing variable names etc are still original code) compared to how much code / strategy is added as new.
Then make (voluntary) Royalty Payments to the original code author in proportion to the above split (but see below).
Account would also need to be taken of time / effort setting up independent websites etc to promote the strategy on a commercial basis.
I could sleep at night if I were to adopt the above principles of fairness?
1 user thanked author for this post.
This is an interesting discussion.
I would like to object that there is nothing that is really 100% new, that is, without some reference to some code snippet or some indicator or some instruction, there will not be. And who wants to be the judge who decides where the border lies on the proportion of new or old known? – to say that is fair?
There will hardly be a generally valid percentage, it will probably always remain a case-by-case decision.
1 user thanked author for this post.
This is from the MarketPlace topic :
Renting a software is not managing other people money. The program is running on their own accounts, they have the plain control on how / when to use it. ProOrde codes are also in readable format (source code available).
It is about this last sentence. In the context of the question asked over there, I don’t understand it anyway (blame me for that) but in the context of our discussion over here it does something.
So @Nicolas, are you saying that whatever Code we may sell (rent out) on the Market Place, will arrive at the customer in readable format ? nah … that can’t be true. It would come handy though because we would be able to check “theft”. Still it can’t be true.Apologies if I am confusing things. I just noticed the discrepancy (which could be in my mind only).
1 user thanked author for this post.
Find exclusive trading pro-tools on 
