11–20 of 22 posts
The problem I have with software patents is that they basically do the same thing. They request monopoly power over the invention while not disclosing how someone in the field could implement it, which would require source code, etc. Since software patents don't disclose enough for another programmer to implement the invention, I don't see how they are benefiting society. They don't share the knowledge but still get…
Personally I think a lot of software patents explain well enough that I could implement their "invention". It's just that the invention is so simple/obvious to us that I wonder how they got a patent and no prior art was found.
With generic drugs coming on the market, Pfizer will certainly soon face some stiff competition.
http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/12wy98/viagra_pat...
The Supreme Court of Canada is extremely well respected by a majority of Canadians and this ruling is a very good example of the reason why it is so well respected.
Fellow Canadian here - indeed. You'd be hard pressed to guess which way a particular Justice leans politically, unlike our cousins to the south. Heck, our Chief Justice excused herself from Conrad Black's potential hearing because she didn't want to be in a conflict of interest. That's integrity right there. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1285112-...
The problem I have with software patents is that they basically do the same thing. They request monopoly power over the invention while not disclosing how someone in the field could implement it, which would require source code, etc. Since software patents don't disclose enough for another programmer to implement the invention, I don't see how they are benefiting society. They don't share the knowledge but still get…
Personally I think a lot of software patents explain well enough that I could implement their "invention". It's just that the invention is so simple/obvious to us that I wonder how they got a patent and no prior art was found.
I'd also like to note that the quid-pro-quo model of patents suggests that, in fact, it shouldn't be enough for the solution to be non-obvious: It should have to be non-obvious even once you have been told such a thing exists. Because if the mere knowledge of the existence of something would be sufficient to render how to do it obvious, the inventor cannot hope to keep its workings secret once it is released, and so we are trading for something that would be worthless anyway.
The problem I have with software patents is that they basically do the same thing. They request monopoly power over the invention while not disclosing how someone in the field could implement it, which would require source code, etc. Since software patents don't disclose enough for another programmer to implement the invention, I don't see how they are benefiting society. They don't share the knowledge but still get…
Personally I think a lot of software patents explain well enough that I could implement their "invention". It's just that the invention is so simple/obvious to us that I wonder how they got a patent and no prior art was found.
Source code is often the only way for someone to recreate an idea disclosed via software patent without undue experimentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think a lot of software patents explain well enough that I could implement their "invention". It's just that the invention is so simple/obvious to us that I wonder how they got a patent and no prior art was found.
There is a second part of the patent quid pro quo deal that is often glossed over and that is "... without undue experimentation". For many ideas, the idea is enough to allow someone to reproduce it, but for a large subset of those ideas, a person skilled in the art would still have to go through undue experimentation if there is no source code available. Source code is often the only way for someone to recreate an i…
Go Canada.