Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year.
If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.
When Patents Attack
61–70 of 135 posts
Re: When Patents Attack
#62Throwing an idea out there: Software patents should last no more than 1 year. If you come up with something worth patenting, you get a year lead on competitors. That's it.
I think a better solution is a mandatory licensing process. The threat of absolute exclusion is too damaging to the industry.
AND, the patent office needs to start DOING THEIR JOB and stop granting patents for obvious inventions.
Re: When Patents Attack
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might want to finish the article.
I get that the article is against the patent process, and the downmodders don't seem to get that I was referring to IV's characterisation of itself, not npr's characterisation of IV - I thought it was clear where I was directing it due to the phrase " you're not a market". I wasn't using 'patent troll' or any of the other terminology. I was pointing out a flaw in this guy's reasoning. Yes, I had only read 500 words i…
The subject of article is more or less how IV's reasoning is flawed. Picking a quote from the beginning and saying "that is flawed" is just echoing the bulk of the article. I would guess your downmodders think you're not adding to the discussion.
Re: When Patents Attack
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except you don't need to make a profit to be subject to a lawsuit. Hobby or weekend projects are just as liable.
Well sure. But from a practical standpoint, a patent troll is far less likely to bother with someone who doesn't have reasonably deep pockets.
While this is generally right, it is also fairly common for patent trolls to go after some small fish they claim are violating a patent first to set a precedent of wins (or settlements) against opponents with weak legal war-chests.
A string of these small victories makes it much easier for them to shake down the big targets later... So while you PROBABLY won't be the target of a lawsuit unless you're very successful, there's a bit of a lottery that happens pretty often with these cases where some small percent of small targets do get run over by the patent holders on the road to the bigger guys. And if you happen to draw the short straw on that, it sucks to be you.
Re: When Patents Attack
#65One of the best TAL episodes in recent memory. The story mentions that modern patents (specifically software patents) lack the novelty that the patent system was originally designed to encourage. Did patent laws change at some point in history to allow this to happen?
The audio version of the story mentions that it was a decision by the patent office, not specific legislation. Sometime in the 1980s they went from copyrighting software (i.e., treating it like literature or art) to patenting it.
No, the audio version mentions that the patent office used to operate on the principle that software could be copyrighted but not patented, but sometime in the 80s the judiciary indicated in several instances that was not the case and the patent office complied.
Re: When Patents Attack
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
That entire article rests on the assumption that software patents have some value outside of the ability to sue someone else with them or to ward of lawsuits by someone else. They want you to think of a software patent like it's a piece of music or a motion picture. They're just like Netflix or Spotify for patents! I don't know how anyone working for that company can sleep at night.
In movies you can't have a patent for action cop movies with a surprise plot twist. That would be absurd. Just like generic software patents.
Don't look now but...
They've actually been trying for some time now.
Re: When Patents Attack
#67It's interesting to see more mainstream media outlets (npr and This American Life (public radio?)) talk more about patent trolling lately. As of a few weeks ago lay people I talked to had no idea programmers generally disliked patents.
Re: When Patents Attack
#68I get anxious every time I read another patent troll story wondering when my weekend creations will end up costing me $ when they accidentally infringe on a patent because I roll out some seemingly ubiquitous feature. I'm deeply saddened by this mess and doubt it will ever be resolved. There is far to much money at stake now to revert things - money = lobbying.
> [...] they accidentally infringe on a patent I hate to break it to you, but chances are that you infringe on hundreds, if not more, patents in the US. Nobody can tell you what or even how many patents you infringe on, though. Nobody has read all the patents and every single one is subject to interpretation. An interpretation, I might add, that has to be validated by a legal system that really doesn't care about cor…
I wonder if there will be a "Finlandization" of software development (concept courtesy of Chris Crawford's classic "Balance of Power" game) where small devs and dev shops align with larger, protective entities that provide defensive protection in exchange for association with the aura of small, indy developers.
Think (evilly): Myrhvold's IV Labs or Apple or Microsoft or IBM offers a "Friends of IV/Apple/MSFT/IBM" program where for $495 annually (like a Apple Developer Connection subscription) you're guaranteed protection, get a t-shirt, give up some PR, etc.
Eh...
Re: When Patents Attack
#69The solution is very simple. Create a simple how to patent template website, then have every developer apply for patents on any business and software process that they can dream of. Within two years you'll choke the entire system into change. Make it impossible for anyone to do anything.
1st idea, the collection, aggregation, and transmittal of electronic messaging data during a waste evacuation process. (i.e. checking your email while on the toilet)
Re: When Patents Attack
#70Intellectual Ventures recently posted a rebuttal http://intven.com/newsroom/insights/11-07-25/Disruption_Invi... They like to say things like "ideas have value" and that they are "disruptive." Are there examples where the patents they own and monetize actually represent valuable "ideas" and not after the fact claims of invention? I'm guessing not, but open to being proven wrong. And who, or what, do they think they a…
I am surprised that the rebuttal didn't attempt to refute any of the facts in the piece. I know the folks at TAL/NPR take their reporting and fact checking seriously, but I would expect IV to take some weaker part of the piece and try to discredit them.
Instead they are creating a false dichotomy of "patents can be good for inventors, so we can't be doing anything wrong"