| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| 'The patent, used as a sword' |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-08 09:24:52 |
| The failing US patent system is getting ever more mainstream - The New York Times is running a long and details piece on the failings of the system, especially in relation to the technology industry most of us hold so dearly. Most of the stuff in there isn't new to us - but there's two things in the article I want to highlight. |
|
| RE[4]: My two cents |
| By JoshuaS on 2012-10-09 14:47:03 |
|
The inventor having a strangle hold on the product is the purpose of the system. Otherwise inventors and their investors will have a huge competitive disadvantage. For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer. I think that we should just define a patentable idea as something which can be produced as a good or service. And only specifically that, deriative idea's are not included in the rights of the patent-holder. And a requirement for a patent should be that the holder actually produces the good or the service. Easy as that. By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources. We must be careful what we wish for. |
 - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: My two cents |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-09 15:16:12 |
|
JoshuaS, "For example, medicins take a lot of investment, but they are very cheap to reverse-engieer." "By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources." For the record, most software engineers are not calling for the general abolishment of the patent system in other fields like medicine, we're just saying that it shouldn't be applied to software, which is routinely derived simultaneously when multiple developers are given the same task to solve. Or when we're pressured to adopt a specific patented solution to be compatible with a defacto standard even though we'd really like to use non-infringing alternatives. Edited 2012-10-09 15:29 UTC |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[6]: Can anyone justify such a system ? |
| By l3v1 on 2012-10-09 15:19:09 |
|
> but, there exist millions of sw patents, and though many are about stuff that by today's standard we dismiss as trivial or appear as a mere application of an everyday "something" to the IT field, most of them trivial are not There seems to be noone out there who would take into consideration that the computer and software field and industry evolved and changed multiple times more and much much faster than any other field out there, and people still seem to think the same patent laws that seem to somewhat work in other fields can be used in the same form for the computing and software industry. Which is crazy a** stupid. Yet, it seems to remain the practice, and no wonder we can see a lot of flaws and drawbacks in doing so. Anyone who still advocates the applicability of the current US patent system for such purpose is very close to an ignorant bum in my eyes. Just my 0.02 of course, as always. |
| - Score: 3 |
| Guess it is who owns it. |
| By jefro on 2012-10-09 17:01:25 |
| Pretty sure that if anyone above actually invented anything and patented it. They would be the first to defend it in court. I can't blame them either. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by jared_wilkes |
| By jared_wilkes on 2012-10-09 18:32:34 |
|
20 - 12.5 - 4.5 = 3 billion dollars. How does that blow past the 20 billion dollar sum? |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[5]: My two cents |
| By Gullible Jones on 2012-10-09 19:38:48 |
|
Personally I'm for reform of the patent system, not abolition of it. By abolishing the patent system entirely, many industries will stagnate because of the mear cost of innovation and small, innovatng bussinesses crushed by multi-nationals, because of their shear resources. Wait, are you telling me this isn't happening already? |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[8]: Can anyone justify such a system ? |
| By jamboarder on 2012-10-09 20:07:07 |
|
This is a minor aside but, you are an author. You see this is half the problem with software engineering today. Software is a low-level specification that it just so happens that, when compiled, the hardware can directly act upon. Software is not analogous to hardware. It never has been and it is tiresome that it continues to be taught adn communicated as such. The correct analogy for software is a requirements document in which ideas are expressed about the way the system should operate. Does a great deal of engineering work go into capturing the ideas for a requirements document? Sure it does. Are you entitled to ownership of ideas expressed in that document? No. Unlike physical items, you cannot naturally maintain exclusive possession of an idea once it is communicated. We the people decided that it is, on the whole, beneficial for our progress to encourage invention and creativity. To support that we grant a temporary monopoly on the sale of products based on idea or the specific expression of an idea. For the latter, copyright was created and enforced by the people. For the former, patents were created and enforced by the people. Without them you have no natural right or capacity to maintain exclusive possession of either an idea or the expression of an idea. You want a monopoly on an idea despite the fact that, at least in the case of software, such a monopoly is demonstrably counterproductive to the ends for which they're created? No. This isn't about treating software engineers differently. This is about ensuring that the patent and copyright system - a system that effectively deprives others of their natural right and capacity to assimilate and act on new ideas - serves its intended purpose. Whine all you want about being treated differently. You'd be treated differently because what you produce - software - is different. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: My two cents |
| By JoshuaS on 2012-10-09 20:10:44 |
|
The main problem with software patents is that unknowledgable civil servants don't know they already had an algorithm for solving a square root in Mesopotamia thousands of years ago. The civil servants should be more knowledgable, that's all. Suppose such a thing as an interface that could suit both the traditional desktop/laptop and tablet existed. That's not an obvious idea ( look at Windows 8 ) and requires you to hire a batch of creative developers. A software patent would have use here, because you're inventing a new software product, and not just telling your computer how to do things mathematicians have been doing for decades. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[6]: My two cents |
| By JoshuaS on 2012-10-09 20:13:33 |
| No. Just that the problem is merely that the patent offices are now running for profit by imbeciles who know nothing about the sciences and the history of inventions. |
| - Score: 1 |
| You do know why Apple started their part ... |
| By Sabon on 2012-10-09 20:59:48 |
|
You do know why Apple started their part in this right? It was after losing a court case and having to pay $100 million dollars because of mp3s. After that Steve Jobs said they were going to patent everything they could and do their best to never lose another case again. That and the whole Windows things. Before anyone says anything about PARC. Make sure you are educated on that and how PARC was granted quite a few shares of Apple stock which they sold later for $16 million. At the time that was a lot of money. This was back in the mid '80s. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |