71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we fix that problem? Loser pays.
With loser pays the big corporation can always generate such legal fees that, even if you have a 70% chance of prevailing, you'd be an idiot to risk bankruptcy.
I'm really too tired to read this, but is someone seriously trying to patent a linked list? This is really a "palm to the forehead" moment for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the outcome of the Monsanto case was beyond absurd, that wasn't what I was referring to wrt genome patents. If you invent a lifeform, then I think it's fine that you patent it. What makes no sense to me is how the genomes of naturally occurring life forms can be patented. By the same rationale, Clyde Tombaugh could have patented Pluto, and Galileo would have patents to Jupiter's moons. It makes no sense whatsov…
Nobody "invents" lifeforms. They hack a few strands of dna cobbled together from other sources and wait until a batch actually grows. Which is what the plants do all by themselves. Copyright, maybe. But not patent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents. There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents. I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that. How do you propose to get people to forego trade secret protection?
There are some interesting optimization methods that probably wouldn't have been made public if it weren't for patents. Which ones? I want all useful algorithms to become publically known. Patents help accomplish that. I don't think that's true. If you invent an algorithm that is genuinely novel and you get a competitive advantage from it, patenting it is the last thing you want to do. Keep it a trade secret. Why? Be…
The one that I was thinking of was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karmarkars_algorithm .
> If you invent an algorithm that is genuinely novel and you get a competitive advantage from it, patenting it is the last thing you want to do. Keep it a trade secret.
You're assuming that the competitive advantage from using the algorithm exceeds the value that one can get from licensing. That's not necessarily true.
> Because as a legitimate company you can't enforce the patent. If you try, you'll just be counter-sued for infringing someone else's patents.
That's not necessarily or always true. Take drugs - the majors don't clone one another - they honor each other's patents.
Every time the patent debate comes up, someone links to this patent as the summit of absurdity. Why not link to this one: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6368227.pdf It's just as absurd as lots of software patents -- that doesn't mean all software patents are absurd. Some are genuinely novel, unobvious, and valuable. I still don't understand why someone could patent a physical machine that computes instructions, but…
Perhaps you can provide a counter example that shows the usefulness of software patents. I personally think they are absurd, as demonstrated by the OP, but am open to changing my thinking if proven wrong. The internet has leveled the playing field for everyone. But one of the few ways that big corporations can take advantage of their size against smaller, more innovative entities is by throwing money into a legal bat…
Now look the argument is "oh its just a few algorithms used in a certain way, that should not be patented". however how is that any different than creating a ammo holder for .45mm bullets which can be put into any gun that can use .45mm bullets? Its just taking some metal and springs and putting them together in some novel way which has not yet been done before.
Remember once you see the invention that is TRULY innovative AND simple but nobody quite thought of using it that way before, it becomes a no-brainer. You start to think "yea given a few hrs I can make one of these myself without any special training or anything, without even looking at schematics, or even taking the one I have apart" but the fact is that nobody thought of it before.
The fact is, it was mentioned in a '96 letter, we must decide what part of programming is the "words" and what part is the "innovation" so that people can't do the equivalent of copyrighting words, but they can copyright books (the end product). (yes I am aware that patent != copyright, but try to see the analogy)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These two patents don't mean that all software patents are absurb, but it means that the current notion of software patents itself is absurd.
No, I don't think it does and I don't think simply stating that it is without providing any evidence for your case is going to change my mind or anyone's mind who agrees with me, but it looks like I'm the only one. Anyway.... The legal system is there to figure out if a patent is absurd and if you read the whole patent for the swing, at the end, it was ruled out. At least claims A, B, C and D. That same review proces…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dude, do not argue that software patents are ok because genome is patentable. That's going in the wrong direction.
Well, perhaps to add more content here w.r.t. the Monsanto case, I mean, the court should have been able to determine if the wind just blew the pollen in to pollinate the plants. IANAL, perhaps an IP attorney who is knows what they are talking about can explain why that case worked out the way it does. Anyway, it's pretty unfortunate how that one example worked out, but the point I failed to make, was that the engine…