a computer program is not a patentable invention
in [Embedded]
|
Prev: Which way to go?
Next: Named RTOS objects
From: Jon Kirwan on 20 Apr 2010 16:07 On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >David Brown wrote: > >> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - >> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' >> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, >> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers. > >I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they >have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and >protecting IP. But don't they appear to have played and still play a role amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite a large payout by Microsoft. Jon
From: David Brown on 20 Apr 2010 17:44 Jon Kirwan wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks > <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >> David Brown wrote: >> >>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - >>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' >>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, >>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers. >> I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they >> have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and >> protecting IP. > > But don't they appear to have played and still play a role > amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite > a large payout by Microsoft. > Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large companies. But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage innovation and to protect IP, neither of which is at issue in the majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending "their" IP. The role played by software patents does neither - it's a protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those who don't quietly pay up. There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are known as "patent trolls". And it's not because trolls are renowned for being innovative or protective.
From: Jon Kirwan on 20 Apr 2010 21:24 On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:44:21 +0200, David Brown <david.brown(a)hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote: >Jon Kirwan wrote: >> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks >> <walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: >> >>> David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - >>>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' >>>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, >>>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers. >>> I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they >>> have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and >>> protecting IP. >> >> But don't they appear to have played and still play a role >> amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite >> a large payout by Microsoft. > >Yes, software patents play a role in the USA - especially amongst large >companies. And amongst smaller companies if the leave the "living in the cracks" and start looking like they are muscling into more profitable territory. >But patents were designed, as Walter says, to encourage >innovation and to protect IP, ***were*** designed. I think that is long gone. >neither of which is at issue in the >majority of cases (though patent owners /claim/ they are defending >"their" IP. The role played by software patents does neither - it's a >protection racket to squeeze licence fees out of people and sue those >who don't quietly pay up. > >There's a reason companies whose businesses revolve around patents are >known as "patent trolls". And it's not because trolls are renowned for >being innovative or protective. Yes. Jon
From: Chris H on 21 Apr 2010 03:22
In message <ca2ss591nq7rdhspjgmmgchd9vt97ipcpj(a)4ax.com>, Jon Kirwan <jonk(a)infinitefactors.org> writes >On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:23:48 -0400, Walter Banks ><walter(a)bytecraft.com> wrote: > >>David Brown wrote: >> >>> The main point in this thread is that software patents are unnecessary - >>> copyright forms a far better platform for protecting the developers' >>> rights - and that software patents are directly harmful to developers, >>> innovators, small companies, and therefore consumers. >> >>I think that software patents are unnecessary mostly because they >>have not been an effective method of encouraging innovation and >>protecting IP. > >But don't they appear to have played and still play a role >amongst large companies with deep pockets? I remember quite >a large payout by Microsoft. Only in the USA. I don't thing SW patents are used anywhere else. IT is also why they never will be. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |