61–70 of 193 posts
Mostly agree, except: Second, Lodsys didn't even "invent" the idea. They purchased the patent and are now using it like a cluster bomb on the entire mobile app developer community. The fact that Lodsys bought the patent and didn't invent the idea themselves seems entirely irrelevant to this dilemma. Unless you also think that if you acquire someone else's software, you don't have the right to sell it.
Mostly agree, except: Second, Lodsys didn't even "invent" the idea. They purchased the patent and are now using it like a cluster bomb on the entire mobile app developer community. The fact that Lodsys bought the patent and didn't invent the idea themselves seems entirely irrelevant to this dilemma. Unless you also think that if you acquire someone else's software, you don't have the right to sell it.
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…
What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?
First, it assumes that we want to be protected against "others independently developing a similar algorithm". Second, it assumes that I "believe that my company deserves to be protected" from such other people. We're not concerned about other people independently developing a similar algorithm as it's rather non-trivial and as I mentioned, it took an awful lot of effort to develop it. We're much more concerned about the very real problem that people (e.g. competitors) will use our research and work.
As for your second assumption, personally (and I'm not representing my employer here) I don't believe that we have the moral right to be protected from other people doing their research independently who reach the same results.
In lights of all this, I really don't know how to answer your question.
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…
Another solution would be to create a very inexpensive way to defend against a patent lawsuit. If defending yourself is trivial, the incentive to agree to extortion schemes is dramatically reduced. 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 f…
Additionally, keep in mind that road goes both ways. Suppose you devise something that is arguably worth a patent and suppose you later find one or many people infringing on your patent, far over the line of fair use. If legal defense is now cheap (dollars/time-wise), you may be stalled in the courts trying to legitimately defend your patent.
There is the approach of increasing punitive fines for unworthy suits or false claims. But patent law is messy. How do you prove the other party intentionally made false claims, wasting the courts time? Or what is an unworthy suit? Somewhat related to punitive enforcement measures, in one of our states a government official is automatically jailed for 1 or 2 nights if they close off an open-meeting no matter the reason. I personally think this is an appropriate punitive measure, but others may think it harsh.
I don't think either approach would work -- both would likely make the system worse. What we need are both a court system and patent office that are sufficiently staffed and have a minimum competence. (I don't mean to insult -- I say this in the context where an official is utterly out of their realm of expertise).
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…
Well, lawyers already went there: http://www.plotpatents.com/
"A Plot or Storyline Patent application seeks to patent the underlying novel and nonobvious storyline of a fictional story. Such protection is to be contrasted from the copyright protection of one of millions of possible expressions of an underlying storyline. The field of possible applications is broad, and may tentatively be split into an entertainment-advertisement dichotomy. The epitome of an entertainment application is an original, thought-provoking, often shockingly unique movie plot. Several potentially patentable features may have been found in the plots of, Memento, The Thirteenth Floor, Being John Malkovich, Butterfly Effect, The Game, Fight Club, The Matrix, Total Recall, The Truman Show, Minority Report, The Village, Groundhog Day, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, to name a few. The epitome of an advertisement application is one of the many thoughtfully hilarious Super Bowl commercials."
Why not incorporate in Europe? Ireland, like Google? Software patent problem solved.
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…
What if your competitor came up with the same algorithm (or very similar) and performs as well both in time and space complexity... and all of this on their own, without actually taking a peek at your code. In that case would you go after them and sue them?
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…
What makes you think your company deserves to be protected against others independently developing a similar algorithm?
"If the patent system didn't guarantee us monopoly on using the fruits of our own R&D, this algorithm probably would not have been developed for a very long time, if ever, by anyone. It would have been innovation that never happened."
You may not agree with the conclusion, but it does address your question.
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…
That's called a copyright. 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...
So to clarify: Saying two different movies both of which has the "friend turns out to be bad" are copies is wrong; that's just not enough of a similarity to base a copyright case on. However, if you happen to find a way to patent it (which you probably could if there hasn't been prior art), you would be able to sue for patent infringement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called a copyright. 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...
But copyright is not about mere similarity: if two people reach the same plot device completely independently (or from a common source) there is no copyright infringement case. Whereas the same thing in the world of patents is a patent infringement case.