|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
As"nutty" as giving letting children play with dynamite.
Except for death, so far at least, these granted patents
cause far more damage to businesses and innovators than any
accidental dynamite explosion.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:55 PM EDT |
Ah, but what constitutes an acceptable "proof", and in whose
judgement?
IMHO, "unworthiness" is exactly that, not worthy of. The
various criteria on the books (101, 103, ...) spell
examples.
What would be worthy of a patent? Something that advances
the Art. As the mathematics of software program are all
that there is to software, and as one cannot advance what is
complete, a software patent cannot advance the Art.
Therefore it is not worthy of being granted, therefore it is
unworthy. QED.
Problem is that it may *look like* it is something new; and
therefore misclassified as "worthy".
Unless the software, when run, helps a dance of physical
processes that produces something new in the physical world,
however, that "newness" is just illusory,
And, with all due respect, trying to make software patents
behave keeping the current set of laws, is in my mind the
same as trying to get pigs to fly while keeping their
current anatomy (and the current gravity on this planet.)
Some part of the rules have to change; self-regulation has
been shown to be futile. Which part is the easiest ?
* Require a working model and be serious about that?
* Define that a text that talks about a process with *no*
anchoring in the physical world cannot be a patent?
* Tune the patent duration to the domain based on product
life expectancy?
* Force patent holders to license on FRAND terms?
* Limit lawyers' fees in any patent-related case to a
fraction of the revenue directly derived from the patent in
the coming X years ?
... but something has to change because greed does not.
Bck not logged in
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
