Exasperation !
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Ridcully Apr 03, 2012 7:29 AM EDT |
When, oh when, is someone going to take a stand and state bluntly that software cannot be patented ? The USA is beginning to move to this direction, but is a long way yet from stating it clearly. The legislators won't - too many dollars in too many pockets but the courts seem to be slowly doing what the Congress will not. May it be soon. |
| jdixon Apr 03, 2012 8:35 AM EDT |
> ....but the courts seem to be slowly doing what the Congress will not. May it be soon. Since it was a court decision which originally allowed software and business method patents, that's appropriate. |
| dinotrac Apr 03, 2012 9:02 AM EDT |
@rid- I think you overstate things just a smidge. What the court's seem to be doing is to question the standards applied by the USPTO when considering software patents. That does have the effect of eliminating most software patents, though, which is a good thing. |
| JaseP Apr 03, 2012 9:49 AM EDT |
The Supreme Court never came straight out to say software was patentable. They allowed a process to be patented that INCLUDED a software program as one of the steps. It was the USPTO that started weakening their stance on software patents, because some appeals courts allowed it... And allowing them means more fees. I'd actually prefer it if Congress enacted protections for trade dress, such as "look & feel" protection, but had no restrictions on function. That way, you'd have less knock-off products, like iPad clones, and more individualistic products with more differentiation. My Acer Iconia a500 doesn't look enough like an iPad to make someone believe it was one, but it's still a great, thin and powerful tablet for a fraction of the price. The Samsung Galaxy, when first released couldn't be distinguished from an iPad at a distance of 10 to 15 feet by one of the attorneys litigating the German trade dress lawsuit. |
| dinotrac Apr 03, 2012 10:11 AM EDT |
@JaseP - Yup, and... if trade dress is done the way it should be (and is for most things), the "essential" elements to do something will be unaffected: ie, your fork might not look like my fork, but nothing keeps you from having tines and a handle. |
| jhansonxi Apr 03, 2012 10:58 AM EDT |
The fashion industry doesn't have much in the way of patent and copyright protections. They rely almost entirely on trademarks. |
| Khamul Apr 03, 2012 1:20 PM EDT |
@jhansonxi: That, and also changing things every single season. Copycats simply can't keep up; they'll always be a season behind. That, and the fact that tons of women for some odd reason are perfectly happy to spend thousands of dollars on a single article of clothing just so they can have the latest Brand X. It's kinda like all the hipsters that just have to have the latest Apple iGadget, except that as overpriced as they are, the prices on iGadgets are much more reasonable (relatively) than the prices for fashion clothing. Here's a great comic about iGadgets: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apple |
| BernardSwiss Apr 03, 2012 8:36 PM EDT |
@Ridcully I predict that this will finally happen at about the same time a governing party elected under a "single member plurality" (a.k.a. "first past the post") electoral system implements transition to a proportional representation system. (in both cases "minor players" talk about the problems and inherent inequities of the current system, the need for reform and the desirability of the change -- but when they become "major players" with actual influence or power, soon decide that now, they'd rather keep the system as is.) |
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!