"Patent Absurdity: how software patents broke the system"
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henke54 May 25, 2010 6:45 AM EDT |
Watch this video : http://patentabsurdity.com/watch.html |
| Bob_Robertson May 25, 2010 7:11 PM EDT |
I suggest that the "abuses" that we all recognize with software patents are alive and well in everything about patents in general, its just easier for us to see in software patents. Every argument against software patents is an argument against the patent system itself. It is a left-over of 18th century merchantilism. Abolish patents entirely. |
| DarrenR114 May 26, 2010 6:35 PM EDT |
Without patents, there's no incentive for the "little guy" to come up with anything new - there's no protection for him from being ripped off by the "big guy". Here's a couple of very valid examples on why patents can be of benefit to the little guy: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5070829.html http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5791062.html Are "little guys" still coming with new things? All the time - I've worked with a semi-retired patent attorney in SW FL who specializes in filing patents for "Mom 'n' Pop" operations. Before he retired, he was an engineer-turned-attorney working for GM. Abolishing patents altogether is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. |
| Bob_Robertson May 26, 2010 8:37 PM EDT |
"Abolishing patents altogether is tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater." Fair statement, if you believe that the benefits outweigh the costs. I do not. |
| jacog May 27, 2010 4:10 AM EDT |
Darren: That argument would be valid, if it were not for the fact that your "big guy" spends a chunk of his time registering patents for any manner of absurd thing, and "little guy" will probably find that his new thing is already covered by a wad of patents. |
| Bob_Robertson May 27, 2010 8:55 PM EDT |
I thought this was very interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 Johanna Blakely: Lessons from fashion's free culture |
| hkwint Jul 19, 2010 1:44 PM EDT |
Quoting:Every argument against software patents is an argument against the patent system itself. Definitely not true, you should read the part about 'computing theory for laywers' on Groklaw (gus3 linked to it). There's a border one can draw between what a Turing machine can do, and what it can't. The part in the "patent absurdity" video about the 'compability calculation' clearly shows this is an abstract idea one can do with a Turing machine. So the thing is, most method / software patents are about stuff which you can do with a Turing machine, while lots of other patents aren't. Building a waferstepper is not something a Turing machine is able to do. Quoting:there's no protection for him from being ripped off by the "big guy". Which goes for all mathematicians, there's no patent so no incentive for them? That's why they are paid by universities, which in turn are paid by the state and enterprises. Meaning, if you are not under 'IP protection', there are still ways to earn money. As a result, problems only arise, if there is no alternative way of earning money without IP protection, or if some fellow doesn't want to work the rest of his life after he had an idea. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!