|
My personal view, software patent is good for innovator who really works hard to come out with the innovation but bad as it might slow down the pace of innovation for new comer when too many restrictions and trivial patents are being used up.
Sonork 100.41263:Anthony_Yio
|
|
|
|
|
THe issue of patents seems to be an oft-discussed, usually reviled, topic. However what can we really do about it? In general, issues such as sotware patents tend to take a back seat to hot political topics, so it's hard to get any attention from our elected officials.
Has anyone considered or actually joined the EFF[^] (or an organization like it)? It seems like the only way to get any kind of meaningful discussion or change on software patents is to (ugh) fight like lawyers.
I am not often very politically outspoken, but I am considering joining this. It may be tricky making sure there aren't any conflicts of interest between my personal views and possible views/actions of my employer... but I suppose if I keep work and my personal views separate, I'm OK.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are getting confused between patents and copyrights. The two are very different!
Copyrights protect a work of art, code, literature, etc. from being copied. The owner effectively dictates the terms on which the user has the right to copy. For instance, the owner could say nobody could copy it at all, or charge a fee (e.g., selling software, music, or movies), or whatever terms the owner deems desirable. They last some obscene amount of time, like 75 years or something.
Patents, on the other hand, protect inventions. They last a shorter amount of time (17 or 25 years) and grant their owner a monopoly on that particular idea or invention. Patents are much more general than copyrights - patents can cover an idea, process, invention, etc.
For the record, I am all for copyrights. It makes sense to allow people to charge for their creations. Patents, on the other hand, when applied to software are quite dubious. For instance, Amazon has patented the "one-click shopping", which means nobody else can use that idea except if they license it from Amazon.
As so many others have mentioned, software patents today are granted for all kinds of stupid stuff that hinders innovation. Take your example of Windows - it is copyrighted. I can't (legally) copy Windows for free. Fair enough. But what if the concept of an operating system were patented? That would mean MacOS, Linux, etc. would all be illegal, and that would stifle innovation and competition.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
Consider this algorithm:
1. Do X
2. Do Y
3. Do Z and this algorithm:
1. Do Z
2. Do X
3. Do Y Both algorithms accomplish the same thing. Do X, Do Y and Do Z are the same logics in both algorithms.
Are the subparts X, Y and Z protected in a possible patent? What if they are common development patterns, widely used by developers all over the world? Prior knowledge would break that patent.
Is the goal or the means protected under a software patent? If it's the goal, well, then patenting an algorithm is out of the question. An algorithm is a means to achieve a goal. So that leaves that only the algorithm is protected by the patent. But since one algorithm can be a composition of well known algorithms, and that the goal is not protected by the patent (I don't see how it can be), then the only logical conclusion is that only a specific implementation can be patented. And for that we already have protections, and they're called copyright laws.
The only purpose software patents serve are 1) it gives huge corporations trading cards (kind of like ice hockey/football/basketball/insert sport here/ cards, and/or 2) ways for huge corporations to stifle the competition by killing small companies fighting to make a living.
And as Roger points out, these patents aren't used for a higher purpose (education and general enlightenment) as originally intended. They're used to secure a slice of the market. How could I ever look at something patented and then work on something similar - but not identical - without being a target for the patent holder?
--
Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr.
Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
|
|
|
|
|
If my compiler started offering ideas for polls I'd probably pretty much freak out.
Matt Newman
What is your malfunction? - Dangeresque, too?
|
|
|
|
|
Patents, as originally conceived, are a good idea. They provide an incentive for innovation, trading 17 years' protection from competition for public disclosure of new ideas. But time and lawyers have warped the original purpose. Software, in particular, is not an acceptable field for patents, in that most software is merely implementation, not original thought. Clever algorithms deserve protection under patent law, but superficial implementation details such as window designs and mouse click interception schemes are not deserving, and add nothing to the pool of human knowledge. The purpose of patents seems to have been forgotten over the years - to extend human knowledge, and allow society at large to benefit from true innovation after a period of protection granted to the inventor to manufacture and market his/her idea.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, and I agree with you. It's not problem in patents. Smart guys must have some way of protection for their work, and also legal way to get paid. Problem is misusing patenting system, where voulchers earn big money with rephrasing known solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
There are samples that even trivial patents are legal, so that nearly every new algorhitm may be "patentable" and in some years the software industry is like working in a mine field, every step can be the last. (because you get sued, with a big lawyer-bill) 
Some old scythian philosoph told nearly 2000 years ago: "laws are like spider nets, only the weak got caught" 
Try this @ home. (B&B)
|
|
|
|
|
..the 4 that voted "is good" until now???
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
Now there are 11 "is good" votes.
Are the votes being logged? I want their names, and I want their CP accounts deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Corinna John wrote:
I want their CP accounts deleted.
Why? Just find & purchase a patent that invented having an account - and the SUE THEM! 
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote:
Why? Just find & purchase a patent that invented having an account - and the SUE THEM!
Hey! I've patented that VERY IDEA! You now owe me three billion dollars for lost revenue.
(I wonder if it's possible to make a software patent version of the Monopoly board game  )
--
Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr.
Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
|
|
|
|
|
Hey now.. everybody is entitled to an oppinion, no matter how stupid and/or farfetched it might be.
We could however start a club and a website, on which we mock these people. 
--
Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr.
Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that was what the Soapbox was for 
¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire!
Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)!
SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0
0 rows returned
|
|
|
|
|
EFF Patent Busting Project's ten most-wanted patents[^]
/ \
/ \ , (Signature under construction )
(@ e) /
\ /
/( . )\
^ \_/ ^
| |
^ ^
|
|
|
|
|
|
if you want to hide the technology behind your software.. simply hide the code.
I'll write a suicide note on a hundred dollar bill - Dire Straits
|
|
|
|
|
...and if you want to hide an idea, keep your mouth shut. Nobody can copy an idea as long as you keep is secret. 
Hey, Microsot, Nokia, and so on... have you read this?! Here's another one:
If somebody has got the same idea you had last year, he is not a criminal. Your idea was too simple.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, the definition of a patent is supposed to be a limited monopoly granted on an invention where the invention is not obvious to an expert in the field.
Notice how business rules, UI gimmicks and the like shouldn't fall into this category. Also notice the non obvious part.
The biggest aprt that sucks is the patent office seems to want to put through as many patents as possible, as they feel the more they grant the more they are stimulating the economy. This is total junk I realise, but the impact is that patents are awarded seemingly without merit and leaving it up to the court system to sort out. Unfortunatley that means if you're a small developer/company/entity you're likely to lose against big players and bored legal departments.
Granting the limited monopoly is fine if you restrict heavily the parts that the invention needs to be non-obvious to an expert in the field. When the latter breaks down, large companies and lawyers are the only to profit.
I could go on, but it's an uphill battle. The patent system will cripple software innovation if not reformed. Don't even get me started on copyright reforms.
-ymmv
|
|
|
|
|
I think the basic idea of rewarding a good idea with a short term monopole is principally acceptable.
But I have 6 main points of critique towards the current system.
1. In our fast lived times, running times of 25 years (and more) are just too long.
2. Originally only solutions, not ideas were patentable. So you had to deliver a working gadget at the patent bureau, not just an: This can be done in such a way or the other.
3. Software patents nowadays often cover what can be done not how it is done, which is pretty absurd.
4. The original thought of patents was, making the solution public, thus furthering progress and rewarding the inventor for giving away his secrets. Todays sw-patents don't make source code public, so there is no sense in rewarding the owners anything.
5. With 90% of the patents being either not new or not relevant, it seams that the patent system has gotten out of hand coming very close to organized crime (e.g.in europe software patents were granted at a time when they were definitly illegal, giving companies an advantage, who participated in this activity)
6. (Software)Patents are now mostly used to hedge against claims of other companies. This and the fact that patent legislation is very complicated, gives big companies an overly big leverage against smaller companies of even simple persons.
I believe that most of these points are systematic and cannot be reformed away. Thus I pledge for no patents at all.
Wolfgang Reichl
|
|
|
|
|
Not all patentable technology is in code. e.g. Amazon's One Click buying, MS's recent double-click patent etc.
regards,
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
South Africa
Ian Darling wrote:
"and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python."
Crikey! ain't life grand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has already expired. Even the Iraqis may use it now.
--
Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr.
Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
