31–40 of 193 posts
Sadly, Software® patents are here to stay, so long® as the patent trolls® and lobbyists®© can find enough people in the "corridors of power"® who'll shamelessly accept their cheques to maintain the status quo. The problem is inherent in the fact that people®© are flawed. And by "flawed", I mean "cunts"® Unless I'm wrong. In which case we can expect software patents to disappear next week.
Unfortunately, by choosing to license instead of crushing them early, companies like Google, Apple, IBM, Cisco and Accenture and government bodies like the IRS provided funding for the troll to grow and thrive. It's relatively easy to say "enough is enough". Actually fighting back is harder and, at this point, almost impossible.
> Unfortunately, by choosing to license instead of crushing them early, companies like Google, Apple, IBM, Cisco and Accenture and government bodies like the IRS provided funding for the troll to grow and thrive. Reality is a bit more complex: none of those licensed from Lodsys, instead they have blanket licenses to all IP of Intellectual Ventures (the biggest patent troll in the world) as part of their initial inves…
Maybe somebody needs to move this issue to someplace more visible. I'd like to introduce the concept of Movie Patents. I'd register a patent for the plot device of having the bad guy be the main character's best friend, with additional clauses for being his boss, advisor, or partner. I wouldn't ever make any movies. I'd just sit back and collect royalties from everybody who used my idea. The reason behind this is tha…
People have disputed the originality of movie ideas including Matrix [0] and Harry Potter [1].
[0] http://blogcritics.org/video/article/author-sues-matrix-writ...
[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/entertainment/main...
I really don't think the problem is software patents, it seems to me the real problem is that most software patents seem to be ridiculously trivial. Here's an example: my employer, a rather small company has invested an enormous amount of resources in developing a specific algorithm. It took years of research and development, lots of money and brainpower, it's very far from being trivial (in fact it's so complicated…
A better one could be to make it profitable to defend against frivolous lawsuits like these. If the plaintiff is required to pay the legal bills of the defendant, plus a hefty margin awarded by the judge according to how frivolous the lawsuit was, we would turn the incentive backwards. That would prevent ridiculous patents like these to even reach a court and create a market for lawyers specialized in shooting down stupid lawsuits.
If Lodsys is a patent troll, then Fred is an equity troll. When Lodsys purchased the patent, the inventor got PAID. When investors purchase stock in a company, the founders (and in the case of an IPO or acquisition, the VC's) get PAID.
This is virtually the same principle.
Besides, Lodsys "is seeking 0.575% of US revenue over for the period of the notice letter to the expiration of the patent, plus applicable past usage." That's hardly enough to kill innovation.
This is another instance where it would have been beneficial if all software professionals belonged to a Guild or union. If we were organized, at least there is some sliver of a chance that we'd be able to have an influence on the legislative process. If that fails, we would just not work to create software patents.
I spent a week vacation with 2 friends who work at the patent office, so w e had time to discuss over beers. They don't believe there is a problem. They rely so heavily on prior art, and have trouble with the very concept that something was too obvious for the first 20 programmers to want to patent it, so prior art is very incomplete. I show them 1 click, they tell me that if it was that obvious someone would have pa…