31–40 of 46 posts
edit: make myself clearer
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
"35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or ... (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented" Even if Tandb…
Tandberg was acquired earlier this year by Cisco, if anyone has any Cisco contacts it might be worth bringing this to their attention as Cisco may not be aware of this as it happened prior to their acquisition. Cisco HR peeps have been quite active in the UK developer community recruiting for Tandberg recently, I'll forward this to one of them to see if can get some attention.
Another prove that software patents should be abolished.
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper? People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
I dislike the patent system, and I also dislike dishonesty - but could it have been possible that the person accused might have stumbled across the same solution independently?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper? People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
Eventually, copyright will die off completely. It's just a matter of when. When we have sci-fi nanoreplicators that can copy luxury (flying) cars, food, etc., all scarcity will be artificial. Alternatively, when we have very convincing VR, everyone will be able to experience what he or she wants to as much as he or she wants to. There won't be anything to trade because you can't give someone something they can't alre…
The music recording industry is effectively already becoming a post scarcity industry, and look how unwilling they are to give up their copyrights. Industries will cling on to things like rights to reproduce, rights to distribute etc. Don't expect these problems to go away because of some sci-fi future tech.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We need USPTO to somehow bear consequences for the harm they're doing to the industry. Reviewed applications are counted towards the "production" of an examiner but approvals later overturned by a court are not counted against them. As long as they only have incentive to rubber-stamp basically anything or risk dismissal, that's what they'll do.
USPTO seems overwhelmed. I would rather see penalties for patent owners where their ability to create new patents is slowed or revoked if any of the patents they own are invalidated.
Tandberg was acquired earlier this year by Cisco, if anyone has any Cisco contacts it might be worth bringing this to their attention as Cisco may not be aware of this as it happened prior to their acquisition. Cisco HR peeps have been quite active in the UK developer community recruiting for Tandberg recently, I'll forward this to one of them to see if can get some attention.
I work for TANDBERG (now a part of Cisco) and I've dropped a note to Lars, the "inventor" in the patent. I certainly would like to hear the other side of the story and will share it if I get it.