Hopewell Patents Music

This should tick off oldman… 😉

No. Hopewell does not claim all music violates their patent, just double-clicking a mouse. The act of double-clicking is like rhythm in music, “rhythm is simply the timing of the musical sounds and silences“. That’s stretching things a bit but it gets to the essence of the patent, conveying instructions from the user to the computer software by varying the interval between clicks. How anyone can imagine that this primitive functionality is an innovation when percussion has been a part of music for millenia is beyond me. It is just another example of the silliness of software-patents. Let’s hope there are some musicians on the jury. If music is not enough of a connection with prior art, we can look at pulse-width coding etc. Time is of the essence.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Hopewell Patents Music

  1. saulgoode says:

    “If music is not enough of a connection with prior art, we can look at pulse-width coding etc.”

    Or Morse Code? … Why should sending a Morse “i” to the computer be patentable? Why then not “s” (triple-clicking) or “e” (single-clicking)?

  2. Richard Chapman says:

    Lawyers, and their clients, prefer vague, open-ended descriptions over crisp, unambiguous code. There could easily be 100 unique subroutines for a “Double Click”. Code the “Double Click” and 99 other variations can co-exist too. Describe a “Double Click”, however, and no one else can touch it without paying a royalty. Which system is better? Here, this may help. If we were talking about literature rather than code (both written works), then story lines would be “patents” of the written word. How many times has King Lear been reworked (Forbidden Planet is one)? How many times would it not have been reworked if story lines were legal intellectual property?

    Software patents will be revoked. But when? How much money will be wasted defending against them? How much wasted litigating for them? And what about the suffering, cost, and hardship of delayed innovation because of them? Personally I believe pressure from the effects of climate change, if nothing else, will snuff out anything that siphons off money and resources needed to prevent the Earth from becoming Venus II.

  3. oldman says:

    “It is just another example of the silliness of software-patents. ”

    Actually, I’m not ticked off. Having to deal This kind of excess is a small price to pay for intellectual property protections.

    IMHO Software patents became a necessity in the face of a community that seems to feel that they have a right to reverse engineer someones work and then render it worthless by open sourcing the result. With software patents in place, at least the owner can go after any commercial entity that tries to profit of of the “open source” version.

Leave a Reply