|
Engineers! Just do something "less" professional if you want to make money 
Norman Fung
|
|
|
|
|
I think that patents are good but it's the system which sucks. Patents are there to protect the little person or company.
E.g.
Imagine that your company has invented an extroadinary new 'thing'. It can only be protected by copyright laws.
The next week MS announces that your idea will be integrated in the next version of their OS. Besides that an other company enhances your 'thing' and makes an awfull lot of $$$ on it. Second your company goes out of business because you couldn't get your 'thing' going.
So IMO patents are good, but the system needs to be improved.
|
|
|
|
|
I completely agree.
If you really work hard, you want to earn some money for your work. The way the big companies work when you only have your work protected by copyright laws is plain evil. MS is simply walking over you and takes you over, or worse... destroys your company.
I think patents are a good way to protected your work. But the system isn't all good at the moment.
"Every rule in a world of bits and bytes can be bend or eventually be broken"
|
|
|
|
|
patents are bad for software. they are good for tangable items, bad for concepts. copyrights are all you need for intellectual property, patents are good for politicians (it gives them something to talk about and it *gives the appearance* that they are doing something with your money).
and thats the bottom line.
>>>>>>>see this post for further info.
/bb|[^b]{2}/
|
|
|
|
|
Ever get a patent submitted and accepted? Ever pay the thousands to keep it that way?
Patents are there for the people / businesses that can afford to get them not the little shop or individual. They wouldnt cost so darn much if it where for the little person. Anyway the line between copyright and patents are getting very blurry.
|
|
|
|
|
The cost to file a patent is $250, I think. And, you can do it yourself if you're comfortable with the process and requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
Check out this site:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2004apr01.htm#patapp
There is more then just one fee.
|
|
|
|
|
Holy crap, I didn't know about that page. Thanks for the tip. So the basic, no-frills, no corrections, no rejections patent will cost this much over the course of its life (small business rates):
1001/2001 1.16(a) Basic filing fee - Utility $ 385.00
1501/2501 1.18(a) Utility issue fee $ 665.00
1551/2551 1.20(e) Due at 3.5 years $ 455.00
1552/2552 1.20(f) Due at 7.5 years $1,045.00
1553/2553 1.20(g) Due at 11.5 years $1,610.00
For a grand total of $4160. Did I miss anything?
So, I guess you don't patent it unless you really, really believe in the idea. Or have a lot of money to burn. Or it's someone else's money. Or all of the above...
|
|
|
|
|
Then all of the fee's that the attorneys charge for getting the text into the correct format and also all the fees for doing patent searching and verifing that you are not overlaping other patents...
It adds up to a lot of money. And someone said that patents where to keep the little person or business safe... Yeah right!!! Small businesses cannot pay these types of prices. What ever... It is all for the big business.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me where Patents and Copyrights overlap?
Can anyone tell me where our fair use rights are going?
|
|
|
|
|
Did you miss anything?
YES.
A little thing called "enforcement".
Take a guess at how much Eolas spent on it, and they had a case.
"The true definition of madness is repeating the same action, over and over, hoping for a different result." - Einstein.
"Einstein never used Windows." - SBB
|
|
|
|
|
My naive friend. It costs about $10,000 in legal fees to really file a patent. You have to get an attorney to file a patent; otherwise, you won't be successful.
I know because I have one. That's the way the system works.
Ah, and if you ever need to defend your patent, well, you'll need another lawyer for that too.
|
|
|
|
|
My personal view, software patent is good for innovator who really works hard to come out with the innovation but bad as it might slow down the pace of innovation for new comer when too many restrictions and trivial patents are being used up.
Sonork 100.41263:Anthony_Yio
|
|
|
|
|
THe issue of patents seems to be an oft-discussed, usually reviled, topic. However what can we really do about it? In general, issues such as sotware patents tend to take a back seat to hot political topics, so it's hard to get any attention from our elected officials.
Has anyone considered or actually joined the EFF[^] (or an organization like it)? It seems like the only way to get any kind of meaningful discussion or change on software patents is to (ugh) fight like lawyers.
I am not often very politically outspoken, but I am considering joining this. It may be tricky making sure there aren't any conflicts of interest between my personal views and possible views/actions of my employer... but I suppose if I keep work and my personal views separate, I'm OK.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are getting confused between patents and copyrights. The two are very different!
Copyrights protect a work of art, code, literature, etc. from being copied. The owner effectively dictates the terms on which the user has the right to copy. For instance, the owner could say nobody could copy it at all, or charge a fee (e.g., selling software, music, or movies), or whatever terms the owner deems desirable. They last some obscene amount of time, like 75 years or something.
Patents, on the other hand, protect inventions. They last a shorter amount of time (17 or 25 years) and grant their owner a monopoly on that particular idea or invention. Patents are much more general than copyrights - patents can cover an idea, process, invention, etc.
For the record, I am all for copyrights. It makes sense to allow people to charge for their creations. Patents, on the other hand, when applied to software are quite dubious. For instance, Amazon has patented the "one-click shopping", which means nobody else can use that idea except if they license it from Amazon.
As so many others have mentioned, software patents today are granted for all kinds of stupid stuff that hinders innovation. Take your example of Windows - it is copyrighted. I can't (legally) copy Windows for free. Fair enough. But what if the concept of an operating system were patented? That would mean MacOS, Linux, etc. would all be illegal, and that would stifle innovation and competition.
"Fish and guests stink in three days." - Benjamin Franlkin
|
|
|
|
|
Consider this algorithm:
1. Do X
2. Do Y
3. Do Z and this algorithm:
1. Do Z
2. Do X
3. Do Y Both algorithms accomplish the same thing. Do X, Do Y and Do Z are the same logics in both algorithms.
Are the subparts X, Y and Z protected in a possible patent? What if they are common development patterns, widely used by developers all over the world? Prior knowledge would break that patent.
Is the goal or the means protected under a software patent? If it's the goal, well, then patenting an algorithm is out of the question. An algorithm is a means to achieve a goal. So that leaves that only the algorithm is protected by the patent. But since one algorithm can be a composition of well known algorithms, and that the goal is not protected by the patent (I don't see how it can be), then the only logical conclusion is that only a specific implementation can be patented. And for that we already have protections, and they're called copyright laws.
The only purpose software patents serve are 1) it gives huge corporations trading cards (kind of like ice hockey/football/basketball/insert sport here/ cards, and/or 2) ways for huge corporations to stifle the competition by killing small companies fighting to make a living.
And as Roger points out, these patents aren't used for a higher purpose (education and general enlightenment) as originally intended. They're used to secure a slice of the market. How could I ever look at something patented and then work on something similar - but not identical - without being a target for the patent holder?
--
Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr.
Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
|
|
|
|
|
If my compiler started offering ideas for polls I'd probably pretty much freak out.
Matt Newman
What is your malfunction? - Dangeresque, too?
|
|
|
|
|
Patents, as originally conceived, are a good idea. They provide an incentive for innovation, trading 17 years' protection from competition for public disclosure of new ideas. But time and lawyers have warped the original purpose. Software, in particular, is not an acceptable field for patents, in that most software is merely implementation, not original thought. Clever algorithms deserve protection under patent law, but superficial implementation details such as window designs and mouse click interception schemes are not deserving, and add nothing to the pool of human knowledge. The purpose of patents seems to have been forgotten over the years - to extend human knowledge, and allow society at large to benefit from true innovation after a period of protection granted to the inventor to manufacture and market his/her idea.
"My kid was Inmate of the Month at Adobe Mountain Juvenile Corrections Center" - Bumper Sticker in Bullhead City
|
|
|
|
|
Well said, and I agree with you. It's not problem in patents. Smart guys must have some way of protection for their work, and also legal way to get paid. Problem is misusing patenting system, where voulchers earn big money with rephrasing known solutions.
|
|
|
|
|
There are samples that even trivial patents are legal, so that nearly every new algorhitm may be "patentable" and in some years the software industry is like working in a mine field, every step can be the last. (because you get sued, with a big lawyer-bill) 
Some old scythian philosoph told nearly 2000 years ago: "laws are like spider nets, only the weak got caught" 
Try this @ home. (B&B)
|
|
|
|
|
..the 4 that voted "is good" until now???
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
Now there are 11 "is good" votes.
Are the votes being logged? I want their names, and I want their CP accounts deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
Corinna John wrote:
I want their CP accounts deleted.
Why? Just find & purchase a patent that invented having an account - and the SUE THEM! 
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
sighist || Agile Programming | doxygen
|
|
|
|
|
peterchen wrote:
Why? Just find & purchase a patent that invented having an account - and the SUE THEM!
Hey! I've patented that VERY IDEA! You now owe me three billion dollars for lost revenue.
(I wonder if it's possible to make a software patent version of the Monopoly board game  )
--
Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr.
Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
