21–30 of 96 posts
really misleading title. they are speaking only of currently pending legislation specifically, not patent reform in general.
Eolas claimed to have invented the first interactive web browsing experience, and patented[1] the concept of interactive web browser plugins (applets). Doyle (founder of Eolas) first targeted Microsoft in what would turn into a long streak of litigation; he initially approached Microsoft with an offer to license his invention. The company declined, and Doyle sued. After drawn out legal proceedings, the parties reached a settlement, with a $30.4 million chunk [2] going to the University of California. Eolas went on to sue[3] 22 other of the largest internet companies for violating the same patent.
Eolas wasn't claiming to have invented "interactive" computer programs in general, since this would be absurd. Eolas simply had the foresight to be first in line to file for a patent that combined the idea of interactivity (via external programs) with the nascent technology of web browsing, which was, to my knowledge, still "non-interactive" in 1994. That said, Eolas might not [4] have even been the first to demonstrate the idea of interactive web browsing. In fact, I'd be surprised if Engelbart's line of research at SRI in the `60's didn't establish prior art decades before.
Regardless of whichever party happened to come up with an idea as simple as interactive web browsing, it hardly makes sense to give this party such sweeping power to extort the rest of the industry for the decade or two that follow.
[1]https://www.google.com/patents/US5838906
[2]http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2007/10/10/microsofts-eo...
[3]http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2009/10/06/after-beating...
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-talk/1995JulAug/0446...
I'd like to say... I just attended a talk where one of the professors is using NSF funding to conduct research, then patent all of their work. Companies are then forced to pay the university based research group for use of their products and for further development. Personally, I cannot decide whether or not this is for the best or not. The research group can bring in more money to produce quality work. On the other…
There is so much of that kind of thing going on. It's even worse when public money paid for "research" that resulted in a product that is then sold back to the government and then additional contracts are issued to improve, change, customize, or alter the product. All of which is funded at wildly overpriced rates without any controls or solid guidelines.
Universities are an interesting case in patent reform. By many people's definitions they would be the patent trolls that we are trying to get rid of: They are not the inventors, and they don't make anything. As an engineering student at one of the schools on the list I like that my school is willing to pay to file a patent with my name on it even if any revenue would mostly go back to the school.
This is highly misleading if not down-right ignorant. Academic research is and has been absolutely necessary for most of the technologies we use today - patent's might not be the best way of financing said research, but we should be clear on the first part; before we roll the barrel on bad administrations and wasteful spending at universities. The toxic response to universities in general here on HN is rather astounding.
The universities are one of the biggest problems in all of this. They mostly exist to siphon funds away from the government and individuals (via subsidized loans) and spend lavish amounts on administration, all while claiming they can't come up with $34,000 a year for a professor. Let them rot. They've somehow convinced people their product is worth more than an individual's own drive in learning something, and artif…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a University professor who does much work funded by the NSF (millions of dollars), whose university (Univ of Washington) is on that list. My tech transfer office tried hard to make me keep some of my software work closed source and succeeded for years (see http://sagemath.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-is-sagemathcloud-l... ). In December I realized to my surprise that some of my NSF grants that funded my work had an…
Wait, I don't understand. Are the non-free parts of SMC there because the university demands that they stay non-free or because you want them to? Does this particular grant involve any of the non-free code you've already written? Also, the grant speaks about releasing software. Do they consider it a "release" if you only give web access to the frontend, but keep all of the backend private?
Universities are an interesting case in patent reform. By many people's definitions they would be the patent trolls that we are trying to get rid of: They are not the inventors, and they don't make anything. As an engineering student at one of the schools on the list I like that my school is willing to pay to file a patent with my name on it even if any revenue would mostly go back to the school.
To be entirely honest, I'm not familiar with all the channels that researchers can get funding, but to discount all these factors by saying universities don't make anything is kind of lame too.
I am not familiar with the current reform, but problem is the fixation of so called "patent trolls". Many legitimate patent holders can be easily hurt by a reform that just is pleasing for the big corporations.
When (for example) patent trolls are identified by the notion "don't produce the invention", than small inventors (and universities) can be hurt extremely, since small inventors have to sell their inventions to big corporations, when the production is out of their reach. Of course, the big corporations will be happy, when they can just steal such inventions and accuse the inventor as "patent-troll".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a University professor who does much work funded by the NSF (millions of dollars), whose university (Univ of Washington) is on that list. My tech transfer office tried hard to make me keep some of my software work closed source and succeeded for years (see http://sagemath.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-is-sagemathcloud-l... ). In December I realized to my surprise that some of my NSF grants that funded my work had an…
Wait, I don't understand. Are the non-free parts of SMC there because the university demands that they stay non-free or because you want them to? Does this particular grant involve any of the non-free code you've already written? Also, the grant speaks about releasing software. Do they consider it a "release" if you only give web access to the frontend, but keep all of the backend private?
2. Regarding your next question, "the grant" I linked to is actually a program solicitation. It's the instructions for people preparing grants for the program, and also the guidelines for other people reviewing these grant proposals. The thing that is actually legally binding on the university is what the actual grant itself says. In my case the grant said (basically) "We will release all code under the GPL." I didn't write that phrase -- some other co-PI on the grant did -- but it was still signed off on by my office of sponsored research.