******The Program Begins******

QA Science,Mathematics, Computer Science 768 Computer software T793 T391-995 Exhibitions. Trade shows. World's fairs K78 Authors last name 1987 Year Published ISBN stands for International Standard Book Number. ISBN type is based on EAN-13. Previously, all ISBN were in EAN-10 format. EAN-13 and ISBN 13 uses the same encoding but may contain different data in the ISBN number (Drop the first 0 and last 4 of 0-09612890070-4 to encode for UPC-A)

------------------------------------------------ http://digital-law-online.info/ Source;The National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) was established by Congress, and operated between 1975 and 1978 to determine how the Copyright Act of 1976 should address computers and copy machines. On July 31, 1978, it issued its Final Report, which is frequently cited, but not readily available. Chapter 3 ? Computers and Copyright Recommendations for Statutory Change,continued... Because of a lack of complete standardization among programming languages and hardware in the computer industry, one who rightfully acquires a copy of a program frequently cannot use it without adapting it to that limited extent which will allow its use in the possessor�s computer. The copyright law, which grants to copyright proprietors the exclusive right to prepare translations, transformations, and adaptations of their work, should no more prevent such use than it should prevent rightful possessors from loading programs into their computers.51 Thus, a right to make those changes necessary to enable the use for which it was both sold and purchased should be provided. The conversion of a program from one higher-level language to another to facilitate use would fall within this right, as would the right to add features to the program that were not present at the time of rightful acquisition. These rights would necessarily be more private in nature than the right to load a program by copying it and could only be exercised so long as they did not harm the interests of the copyright proprietor. Unlike the exact copies authorized as described above, this right of adaptation could not be conveyed to others along with the licensed or owned program without the express authorization of the owner of the copyright in the original work. Preparation of adaptations could not, of course, deprive the original proprietor of copyright in the underlying work.52 The adaptor could not vend the adapted program, under the proposed revision of the new law,53 nor could it be sold as the original without the author�s permission.54 Again, it is likely that many transactions involving copies of programs are entered into with full awareness that users will modify their copies to suit their own needs, and this should be reflected in the law. The comparison of this practice to extensive marginal note-taking in a book is appropriate: note-taking is arguably the creation of a derivative work, but unless the note-taker tries to copy and vend that work, the copyright owner is unlikely to be very concerned. Should proprietors feel strongly that {Page 14} they do not want rightful possessors of copies of their programs to prepare such adaptations, they could, of course, make such desires a contractual matter. ((And to think the critics said that my programs were too simple. "Keep it most simple all you programmers, then sell licenses to the developers.")) ((There are Legal and Illegal monopolies)) Some in the U.K. argue that my programs are "Obvious", but they weren't at the time I wrote them and got copyrights. software patents Forums > Speakers' corner Search forum: Start new subject | Reply to this subject [1] geraldkrug Thu, 19/01/06@07:06 I am an intellectual property, IP, owner. I have copyrighted 56 computer programs. I can sue anyone who re-produces my logic flow and coding work for commercial gain that didn't get a license from me for my permission. The reason why I haven't sued un-licensed companies is because I didn't want to stifle the computer revolution. I think copyrights (not patents) are the tool to use for computer programs. Patents are granted to stimulate the market place and if the patent owner does not market a product based on the patent he loses his right to the patent to a company that will produce a real product. This rule was brought by president Ronald Regan so patent owners could not just "sit" on patents and then sue if some company brought out a product based on "their" patent. Two companies did bring a similar patented product to the market at about the same time and the courts choose one company to market first, until one million products were sold, then the other company could enter the market legally. It's easier to get investor money for patents than for copyrights, sadly, so I see a need to change that so smaller companies with truly new computer programs will get to market on a national scale. I believe if I enter the fray on this issue I could bring alot of clarity. I also believe that computers have matured to the point that truly new marketable products will become more and more rair so why bother with the software patent issue at all. �dstowe Thu, 19/01/06@09:13 "Patents are granted to stimulate the market place and if the patent owner does not market a product based on the patent he loses his right to the patent to a company that will produce a real product. This rule was brought by president Ronald Regan so patent owners could not just "sit" on patents and then sue if some company brought out a product based on "their" patent." Could you direct me to the official citation of this rule please? DieSse Thu, 19/01/06@13:49 *I have copyrighted 56 computer programs.* As an actual copyright owner, what's your personal view on how long such copyrights should hold good for? ShalafiStudios Thu, 19/01/06@14:26 Is it ethically correct? After all, programs are grooves on a piece of plastic or numbers on a hard drive, anyone can reproduce them. As an amateur software designer, All my software is freeware. I believe that software should be free for all, it is a tool, no one copyrighted a hammer, after all! SG Atlantis? Thu, 19/01/06@16:00 ShalafiStudios "After all, programs are grooves on a piece of plastic or numbers on a hard drive, anyone can reproduce them." If you look at everything that way, then art is just canvas and paint swirled around on it, music is just sounds arranged a particular way. Doesn't mean anyone can just copy it, legally! "no one copyrighted a hammer, after all!" no one gives them away for free either... �dstowe Thu, 19/01/06@16:20 Before this moves into a free for all, I genuinely would like to know the answer to my question above. wee eddie Thu, 19/01/06@16:24 geraldkrug "I also believe that computers have matured to the point that truly new marketable products will become more and more rare so why bother with the software patent issue at all." I can remember someone in the late 60's saying that all the possible songs possible had already been written and that pop music would stultify and die. Fat chance, but they hadn't heard the Gallagher Brothers. Computers are unlikely to cease, their format will change, radically. The writing is already on the wall for the standard box PC, although what will form follow it is not yet certain. Haol Thu, 19/01/06@16:49 so why bother with the software patent issue at al and certain types of licenses aswell. Rigga Thu, 19/01/06@16:57 ShalafiStudios As you state you are an amateur software designer, so presumably you make your living from something else? I am a professional software designer and writer, and I make my living through people paying for the programs I spend eight hours a day writing, and I am extremely protective of my software, which is all copyrighted. I do however disagree with patents on software and processes!, but agree with geraldkrug copyright should be enforced rigidly. R. geraldkrug Thu, 19/01/06@20:18 Patents, use em or lose em... I searched yahoo with "President Ronald Reagan Memorandum on Government Patent Policy" found... click here �march-in rights? This is a very obscure rule to be sure.I remember the place I found this.Let me find it again for you.Oh!Here it is. The third taxpayer protection included in Bayh-Dole is the government�s retained �march-in rights.? These provisions entitle a funding agency to issue nonexclusive licenses or to require a contractee or exclusive licensee to grant nonexclusive licenses to other applicants if the agency determines that: ?(1) Such action is necessary because the contractor or assignee has not taken, or is not expected to take within a reasonable time, effective steps to achieve practical application of the subject invention in such field of use; (2) Such action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs which are not reasonably satisfied by the contractor, assignee or their licensees; (3) Such action is necessary to meet requirements for public use specified by Federal regulations and such requirements are not reasonably satisfied by the contractor, assignee or licensees; or (4) Such action is necessary because the agreement required by paragraph (i) of this clause has not been obtained or waived or because a licensee of the exclusive right to use or sell any subject invention in the United States is in breach of such agreement.? 37 C.F.R. ? 401.14(j) (emphasis added). The term practical application is defined as: �to manufacture in the case of a composition or product, to practice in the case of a process or method, or to operate in the case of a machine or system; and, in each case, under such conditions as to establish that the invention is being utilized and that its benefits are, to the extent permitted by law or government regulations, available to the public on reasonable terms.? 37 C.F.R. ? 401.14(a)(3) (emphasis added). The march-in rights were intended to prevent two outcomes: First, where a private entity sits on a taxpayer-funded invention and fails to commercialize it in a timely fashion; and, second, where a private entity takes advantage of the exclusive license and charges an unreasonable price for the product. Although no specific formula was put forward to calculate what constitutes an unreasonable price and profit, it is fair to say that the march-in provisions were intended to protect against corporate windfalls. Of course, the Act certainly contemplated some return on investment, for such a return is necessary to induce commercialization. geraldkrug Thu, 19/01/06@20:43 bar set way too high For example,I want to produce a smart wristwatch to do a fun calculation for the wearer/user. It is impossible to get an LCD maker to produce this for my company to my liking.The technology exists, but not for me, WHY? Corporate Facism? �march-in rights? makes severe penalties to any companys that do not sell (patented) goods to buyers. �dstowe Thu, 19/01/06@22:18 Thanks for that - looks very interesting but I will have to leave it until tomorrow (late for me now - up early in the morning). DieSse Thu, 19/01/06@22:30 By email - from geraldkrug *Well lets see, it's authors life plus 17 years, I think. If you haven't made your money/contribution to society by then it may be worthless to any one to own.What do you think?* With respect, I didn't ask what it was - I asked your opinion as a software copyright holder, of what it should be. Forum Editor Thu, 19/01/06@22:43 I'm not sure where you think you're going with this. I'm an intellectual property rights/copyright holder, too, as are many other forum members, and I certainly don't have any problem with the copyright law as it exists - at least as it exists here, in the UK. American copyright legislation went slightly off the rails in my opinion when the law was changed, effectively to accomodate the Disney corporation. Complaining that "Corporate Facism" might be why you can't get an LCD maker to produce your product is a paranoid touch isn't it? Perhaps the reason is that your product isn't of sufficient interest to these companies. If you're convinced that your licence is being wrongly or deliberately witheld you can ask the appropriate Federal Agency to intervene - it has the power under the march in rights clause to grant the licence iself if it's convinced your claim is valid. wee eddie Fri, 20/01/06@00:21 geriatric Have you thought that the Companies you asked might not feel that it is worth their while. e.g there's not enough profit in it for their Shareholders. There may be a dozen other reasons why they do not wish to do business with you. That's their prerogative. If the product is so good. Why don't you make it yourself? Mytob Fri, 20/01/06@18:37 opensource is the way forward in my opinion. It allows the most inovation and compertition between people. Money is made not on the product but the support for the product and boxed copys. This is how novell work with suse linux and others like mandriva and it seems to be working for them. ShalafiStudios Sat, 21/01/06@09:26 A word to SG Atlantis "If you look at everything that way, then art is just canvas and paint swirled around on it, music is just sounds arranged a particular way. Doesn't mean anyone can just copy it, legally!" Could I ask you not to compare computers to art? Art and music are expressions for human emotion and belief whereas Software is a tool. Finally, I ask you why do programmers get paid everytime their software is sold? A doctor is generally paid less, and he doesn't get paid after every patient he saves (in the UK). Forum Editor Sat, 21/01/06@16:56 "why do programmers get paid every time their software is sold?" Because it's their creation, in just the same way that an original oil-painting is a creation - they're both original works, and both protected by copyright. Buy a copy of either and included in the price will be a copyright licence fee. Doctors are practitioners - they create no 'original work' and there's no earthly reason why they should be paid a copyright fee for doing their job, any more than I should, or any more than an ambulance driver should. To suggest otherwise is fatuous. geraldkrug Sun, 22/01/06@04:13 thank you all I admit "Corporate Facism" is a bit much,Sorry. I think if a copyright is still "valuable" the life should be extended till it's not then it goes freely to the public domain. I know a company might not want to "buy" my watch idea but I have also wanted it made for me and I get no co-operation from LCD makers... I want to be a "nice" company and I really don't want to sue anyone but if I soon have to patent my programs then what???? Thanks for your ideas everyone, checks in the mail. Forum Editor Sun, 22/01/06@10:46 I'll be in New York very soon for a few day's work - you can send mine to my hotel. PurplePenny Sun, 22/01/06@13:56 I have copyrighted You can't have "copyrighted" anything: copyright protection is automatic. The copyright holder need do nothing; copyright exists from the moment that a recorded form of an original work is created. It is sensible to take further steps to protect your copyright and one of those steps is indeed to register your work with a body such as The UK Copyright Service; but you do not have to apply for protection the way you do for, say, a patent or trademark. geraldkrug Sun, 22/01/06@17:47 added noise copyrights must be in a "fixed" form to automatically qualify as copyrighted. By "fixed" I think it is meant, publishable, is that a word? My-self I went the whole ten yards, Library of Congress. Hotel in N.Y. WOW! that is really gonna cost me. Forum Editor Sun, 22/01/06@19:29 An original work must indeed be in a fixed form before copyright applies. That is to say it must be written down, or painted, or sculpted, or take the form of an image (digital or otherwise). Copyright applies to 'works' and not concepts - you can't copyright an idea. Patents apply to things like industrial processes or methodologies - if you invent a new way of joining metal sheets together to form aircraft wings you may be able to patent the process. Patents are about functional and technical aspects of products and processes. Most patents are granted in respect of improvements in known technology - evolution rather than revolution. When granted a patent you are effectively granted a monopoly allowing you the right for a limited period to stop others from making, using or selling your invention without your consent. PurplePenny Sun, 22/01/06@22:21 must be in a "fixed" form ... which is why I wrote "copyright exists from the moment that a recorded form of an original work is created." LoC is a bit extreme. You could just have deposited with the one (or all) of the UK libraries of legal deposit (aka "the copyright libraries". We are the ones that the lawyers come to in dispute cases. PurplePenny Sun, 22/01/06@22:31 PS Unless of course you are in the USA! Rigga Mon, 23/01/06@09:25 If only software patents were around in the early 60's when software and programming languages was starting to take shape, I wonder if I could have got a patent for the IF test? A method by which branching is performed based on a logical comparison of two separate parts. I'm sure by now I would either be extremely rich, or there would not be much software around. :) R. �dstowe Mon, 23/01/06@10:49 For anyone interested in the "March-in Rights", this applies to 37CFR 401.14 Standard Patent Rights Clause" Patent Rights (Small Business Firms and Nonprofit Organizations)" The whole of 37CFR 401.14 can be found click here Taken as a whole, there is a somewhat different emphasis in 37CFR 401.14 than there appears to be in the small section quoted. geraldkrug Mon, 23/01/06@18:40 interesting fact? On my continued research on software patents it seems that to say a software is a process (something that effects the forces of nature) has been hard to prove but a German court said someting recently that seems right to me. They said that a computer program "software" takes a certain amount of electricity to complete it's task so is in fact an industrial process. What do you all think? I think it also should be a "constantly used" software to qualify as a patentable product. PurplePenny Mon, 23/01/06@21:59 I can see an argument but I don't agree with that particular criterion as a deciding factor: it is far too simplistic. Both TV and films need electricity to complete their tasks. Without the electricity the medium of both is dead in the water but I would consider both to be art forms rather than industrial processes (though the actual mechanism of bringing the art form to a state where it can be viewed is an industrial process). geraldkrug Tue, 24/01/06@20:05 What if software is made patentable as a logic process patent? Do we all go rushing to the corner patent lawyer and spend 10,000+ and then must quickly produce a flowchart and production product or lose the patent rights? Do copyright holders have "first come, first serve" priority to patent their software? Patents give companies legal monopolies but will we have more illegal monopoly practices that gouge the public wallet and ignore small business? Do we need a new way to deal with IP world wide? DieSse Tue, 24/01/06@22:29 IMHO legal monopolies for copyright and patents are fine - as long as they don't last too long, and as long as DRM is freed up somewhat. Not too long - 10 years perhaps? That gives plenty of time to exploit the novelty of any creative work, and create something anew. I don't think IP rights holders should have a monopoly income on their creation for ever - any more than the rest of us should get paid for ever if we perform a job of work. wee eddie Wed, 25/01/06@00:44 DieSse - Part of the problem is Drug development It can take from 8 to 15 years to get a new drug from conception to market. All that has to be paid for out of the next 10 to 15 years profits. If the Drug Companies do not get a sufficient period of protection, they will not bother to go through the rigorous testing procedures that we require for our safety. DieSse Wed, 25/01/06@01:04 No probs - patents might be longer. My comments were really aimed at copyrights - I should have made that clear. As comments *they will not bother to go through the rigorous testing procedures that we require for our safety.* - they have no choice on this. I think you'll find companies R&D is paid from current income, not future profits. Forum Editor Wed, 25/01/06@08:36 10 year copyrights? Never. Authors commonly spend two or three years researching and writing a book, and if copyright was subsequently limited to ten years many of them wouldn't bother - the potential reward might not be worth the time and effort. The same thing applies to films. You have to be realistic about this, and understand that creative people don't all have lives of unparalleled luxury, legions of them spend their working lives making very little money, and they rely on a drip-feed of copyright fees to keep them going. I know several people in this situation. We hear about the tiny number that have massive success, and become wealthy quite rapidly, but no sensible person would dream of limiting copyright terms for the many, based on the success of a few. Much the same thing applies to patent rights, and again there are many inventors who struggle to make a living, hoping for that one successful patent that will pay back for all the non-starters. Medical research, as highlighted by wee eddie, is a very good example of this. Modern drug research programs can go on for years and years - often for more than a decade - and the drug companies rely on a fair patent right on successful products in order to fund more research. Shorten the term and you would find that many projects simply wouldn't happen. As wee eddie rightly says, the companies just wouldn't bother, they would stick to the racing certainties, to the ultimate detriment of us all. geraldkrug Wed, 25/01/06@18:32 job creation Remember when a product goes to market it is creating lots of side bar jobs so when you think of a person getting paid forever on just one "Work" remember this kind of "Work" is one that causes a Giant undertaking to accomplish and needs to pay alot of workers. geraldkrug Tue, 02/01/07@18:32 Bill Gates and Co. announced to the world that they owned the "operating system" to computers But they never said they owned all programs.It seemed all the programmers at that time got confused by the announcement and stopped protecting their programs by copyright,Except Me of course... As far as my computer programs passing the non-obviousness test to be patentable, the question is, how successful is the invention? Is it copied widely? The answer is, yes. In other words... A computer program is a combination of known elements that adds the highest speed of calculation, and presentation, to the total stock of analog knowledge, so should be patentable. Graham factors The factors a court will look at when determining obviousness and non-obviousness in the United States were outlined by the Supreme Court in Graham et al. v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City et al., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) and are commonly referred to as the "Graham factors". The court held that obviousness should be determined by looking at the scope and content of the prior art; the level of ordinary skill in the art; the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and objective evidence of nonobviousness. In addition, the court outlined examples of factors that show "objective evidence of nonobviousness". They are: commercial success; long-felt but unsolved needs; and failure of others. Other courts have considered additional factors as well. See Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 697-98, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (considering skepticism or disbelief before the invention as an indicator of nonobviousness); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co., 819 F.2d 1087, 1092, 2 USPQ2d 1490, 1493 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (considering copying, praise, unexpected results, and industry acceptance as indicators of nonobviousness); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 679, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (considering copying as an indicator of nonobviousness). http://news.yahoo.com/does-us-patent-system-microsoft-points-android-proof-002603078.html Recent reforms Last month, President Obama signed the America Invents Act, which introduces changes to the U.S. patent systems. It�s widely regarded as the most significant revision to the patent system since the dawn of the computer age. Among the changes implemented by the America Invents Act are a conversion from a �first to invent? system to a �first to file? system beginning in early 2013: That is, the person who first comes up with a patentable process isn�t necessarily eligible for patent protection unless they are also the first to file for a patent on the method. (There is a grace period and infringement defense for other inventors who use a method commercially prior to a filing.) The change brings the U.S. system into line with other patent systems around the world. The practice will eliminate so-called �interference proceedings? that sometimes had to be held to determine which of multiple applicants actually first came up with a particular process. As of 2013, those will all be resolved by filing dates alone. The first-to-file method has been criticized as favoring large companies that can afford to file swathes of patent applications; the grace period is primarily designed to protect smaller companies and individuals. The act also includes patent fee reductions for �micro-entities? like individual inventors and startups, designed to lower barriers of entry into the patent process. However, the America Invents Act does little to settle questions surround the validity and granting of software patents, and while it does redefine the nature of �prior art? surrounding the validity of a patent application, it does little to nothing to change other shortcomings of the U.S. patent system. Patent battles in the technology world will still likely outlast the technology itself. Non-practicing entities will still build businesses solely around collecting, licensing, and suing over patents. And patents will still be stacked up and swapped as chits in ever-more-complex chess games as companies try to strengthen their positions in negotiations and courtroom fights.

Google data_feed.txt for Google Merchant account item insertion... sheet 1

id [1]

title [2]

description [3]

condition [4]

price [5]

availability [6]

link [7]

image link [8]

gtin [9]

mpn [10]

brand [11]

google product category [12]

gender [13]

age group [14]

size [15]

color [16]

material [17]

pattern [18]

item group id [19]

tax [20]

shipping [21]

shipping weight [22]

sale price [23]

sale price effective date [24]

additional image link [25]

product type [26]

704

Program Begins, The

Over 50 programs on the TRS-80 PC-4 pocket computer

New

25.95 USD

In Stock

http://pb.geraldkrug.com

http://pbf.geraldkrug.com

96128900704

900704

gerald daniel krug

Media > Books

unisex

US:CA:9:n

US:CA:UPSGROUND:4.00

19.95 USD

http://pbf.geraldkrug.com

Book

[1] Identifies each item. - Must be unique to an item across the account. - Item must maintain the same ID over time.
[2] Item name that may display on Google Product Search.
[3] Item�s description. No promotional text allowed, including shipping information.
[4] Item condition. Accepted values: - New - Refurbished - Used
[5] Item�s base price, along with the corresponding currency code.
[6] Accepted values: - 'in stock': Item ships within 3 business days. - 'available for order': Usually available, but ships in 4 days. - 'out of stock': Not accepting orders. - 'preorder': Taking orders, but the item hasn't been released.
[7] Item�s landing page from Google Product Search. Must reside within the claimed website domain and be reviewable by Google crawlers.
[8] Item picture link that�s crawlable by Google. Logo images are invalid.
[9] Product�s Global Trade Item Numbers (GTINs). Accepted values: - UPC (in North America), - EAN (in Europe), - JAN (in Japan), or - ISBN (for books).
[10] Product code that identifies the manufacturer. The combination of brand name and MPN clearly specifies one product.
[11] Item�s brand name.
[12] The item category per Google's taxonomy: http://support.google.com/merchants/bin/answer.py?answer=160081
[13] Accepted values: - Male - Female - Unisex
[14] Accepted values: - Kids - Adult
[15] Item size.
[16] Item color.
[17] Primary material used in item.
[18] Item pattern, such as solid, stripes, or any other value.
[19] For an item with multiple colors, sizes, materials, or patterns, group them together via a unique 'item group id.?
[20] Tax on the item. In case the tax is submitted for the account, then this attribute is optional. Has four sub-attributes: - country (optional): The country an item is taxed in. - region (optional): The zip/pin code or state abbreviation. For example, �CA? for California in the US. - rate (required): Tax rate as percent of the item price. - tax_ship (optional): Boolean value in case of tax on shipping; �y? for yes or �n? for no (default value is blank = no)
[21] Item�s shipping cost. Has four sub-attributes: - country (required): The destination country. - region (optional): The zip/pin code or state abbreviation. For example, �CA? for California in the US. - service (optional): The name of the shipping method. - price (required): Fixed delivery price.
[22] Weight used to calculate the shipping cost. Mandatory in case the account-level shipping setting is based on weight, such as �carrier-calculated.?
[23] Item�s temporary sale price. Note that the typical price at the store must still be submitted using the 'price' attribute.
[24] Date range of the sale. Is used in conjunction with �sale price.?
[25] Up to 10 additional images of the item -- for instance, multiple angles or colors. Separate each link with a comma.
[26] Item�s product category per the store. Strongly recommended.

Font MICR.ttf or Data 70 regular

GDK Co. brand of products, Copyright 1/27/2019 Mfg.#(208679)

GDK Co. END-USER AGREEMENT
Input agree in box below and click "YES" button Input no in the box and click "YES" button