51–60 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me, software and algorithms are the same thing Algorithms exist outside of software. Algorithms are formulas or functions for solving a problem. Software is usually the implementation of one or more algorithms on a computer.
Why not think of your algorithms as software for a machine that doesn't yet exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To me, software and algorithms are the same thing Algorithms exist outside of software. Algorithms are formulas or functions for solving a problem. Software is usually the implementation of one or more algorithms on a computer.
Why not think of your algorithms as software for a machine that doesn't yet exist?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how that's relevant.
Conflating the copyright parts of the DMCA with the non-copyright parts for some reason?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather the patent system be abolished than have the current patent system. Same applies to Copyright. The entire state of IP with the DMCA is just abysmal.
Be careful, you just might get what you wish for. There definitely are major problems with the patent system and with copyright but without them there would be other problems taking the place of the ones that we have now. Reform is the way to go, and reform - good reform anyway - is hard to get right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Patents were designed so that companies would contribute to public knowledge instead of keeping everything as a trade secret. The idea was that they would be afforded increased security for a few years, in exchange for the idea becoming public afterwards. The time range was set to be practical for the industry. The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timef…
> The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Two thoughts: - Why does this mean that they should be eliminated entirely? Why not revise the timeframe? - Isn't this argument applicable to almost all modern patents, whether software, technological, or otherwise?
Unfortunately making software non-patentable isn't likely to happen anytime soon. Perhaps we should fight for some key changes like reducing the length of software patents to something reasonable like 5 years.
I'd also like to see an "industry standards" exception to patents: Any implementation of an industry standard created by an international standards organization, working group, or similar authority is exempt from patent suits. Royalties are fixed at some rate determined by the board (but no more than x% of sales price or flat $y per item indexed to inflation) and go into a pool. All patents in the pool are paid out of it. If you think your patent covers something in the standard your only option is to submit your patent to the pool, then you get a cut of the royalties corresponding to your contribution (again as determined by an impartial board). Any fights over standards-related patents would be confined to the board of experts, the royalty rate they determine, and the allocation to each patent. The law would specify that changes to royalties (even court-ordered) can only go into effect once per year and only apply to products manufactured after that date.
Such a scheme would encourage everyone to contribute to open standards because it would be the only way to ensure you can avoid patent lawsuits.
The one wrinkle is open-source software. I was trying to come up with a workable system. All I landed on was no royalties required for open-source software or end-users of such software, but if a manufacturer uses such software in a product they sell then they would still be subject to royalties.
As an aside, MPEG-LA already moved on, forming other patent pools such as for CRISPR (the gene editing technology). See their website: http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx
Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA existing... (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big media). MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken I…
The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather the patent system be abolished than have the current patent system. Same applies to Copyright. The entire state of IP with the DMCA is just abysmal.
Be careful, you just might get what you wish for. There definitely are major problems with the patent system and with copyright but without them there would be other problems taking the place of the ones that we have now. Reform is the way to go, and reform - good reform anyway - is hard to get right.
Technically competent people (in the field of the patent) should be performing the reviews, they should be given the time that they need to do so.
I believe there is a shared commercial justification for both patents and copyright: protection against your work being co-opted as soon as it's produced provides a period in which production costs can be recuperated and profits made. This is a significant motivating factor in the production of works.
I do not believe that the law currently provides adequate coverage against the production of similar works. Look at the situation with Facebook or Blizzard (WOW), rapidly copying novel new features from smaller competitors to prevent them from ever getting any hold in the market. Or with Zynga, et al wholescale copying games with total impunity.
(If a period of even 3 years protection was provided for simple yet novel mechanics, there would be a far greater potential for successful titles from non-major development houses.)
I would put protection for all forms of work under a single unifying law. The period of coverage should given consideration to the quality and the novelty of the work in question, and provide the justification behind the decision (if this justification is proven to be unreasonable or incorrect the protection should be voided).
Exemptions must be provided for breaches demonstrably in the public good.