Talk:VisiCalc: Difference between revisions
Factual accuracy |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
:"Though the electronic spreadsheet was a revolutionary idea, Bricklin was advised that he would be unlikely to be granted a patent, so he failed to profit significantly from his invention. '''At the time''' [presumably in 1979], '''patent law had not been successfully applied to software.'''" |
:"Though the electronic spreadsheet was a revolutionary idea, Bricklin was advised that he would be unlikely to be granted a patent, so he failed to profit significantly from his invention. '''At the time''' [presumably in 1979], '''patent law had not been successfully applied to software.'''" |
||
The content of the article [[software patent]] (see section: Early example of a software patent) contradicts this last sentence, pointing to software patents granted back in the early sixties.. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
The content of the article [[software patent]] (see section: Early example of a software patent) contradicts this last sentence, pointing to software patents granted back in the early sixties.. --[[User:Edcolins|Edcolins]] 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
The statement in the article is correct for the US. As the [[software patent]]s article says: |
|||
:The USPTO maintained this position, that software was in effect a mathematical algorithm, and therefore not patentable into the 1980's. [In 1981], the court essentially ruled that while algorithms themselves could not be patented, devices that utilized them could.... by the early 1990s the patentability of software was well established... |
|||
I will add the phrase "in the US" to the article and remove the dispute tag. --[[User:Macrakis|Macrakis]] 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:49, 15 December 2006
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the VisiCalc article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
"... and in time ..."?
What does "and in time the copyright" mean? Is this a particular use of US English with which I am unfamiliar, or an error? --Anonymous
- It does seem OK to use this phrase in US English, yes. AFAIK, it means roughly the same as "... with the passage of time ...", or, "... eventually ...". --Wernher 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Ray Ozzie's role?
"Ozzie was instrumental in the development of Lotus Symphony and Software Arts Inc.’s TK!Solver and VisiCalc..." -from his bio at Microsoft. Instrumental how? --Snori 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Factual accuracy
The factual accuracy of part of the article is disputed. The article states:
- "Though the electronic spreadsheet was a revolutionary idea, Bricklin was advised that he would be unlikely to be granted a patent, so he failed to profit significantly from his invention. At the time [presumably in 1979], patent law had not been successfully applied to software."
The content of the article software patent (see section: Early example of a software patent) contradicts this last sentence, pointing to software patents granted back in the early sixties.. --Edcolins 22:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The statement in the article is correct for the US. As the software patents article says:
- The USPTO maintained this position, that software was in effect a mathematical algorithm, and therefore not patentable into the 1980's. [In 1981], the court essentially ruled that while algorithms themselves could not be patented, devices that utilized them could.... by the early 1990s the patentability of software was well established...
I will add the phrase "in the US" to the article and remove the dispute tag. --Macrakis 22:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)