decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Move to a country that has no software patents?. | 1347 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Move to a country that has no software patents?.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT
How does the rest of the world survive with no software patents?

Surely if the author believes it is right to support software patents over work
I perform as a software developer then I should have a right to patent the work
that the author performs?

rgds

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not many options
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
1. Congressional action.

2. Supreme Court decision.

3. Constitutional amendment.

4. International treaty.

Congressional action isn't likely to happen any time soon. The
"intellectual property" lobby (both companies and lawyers) is too
strong; the pain is not currently felt strongly enough by the victims and/or the
public to overcome that.

A Supreme Court decision could happen, but someone would have to argue something
along the lines of "the current system does not do what the Constitution
requires of the patent system". With adequate data, that might be a valid
Supreme Court argument, but it's a nuclear option (whoever argued it would lose
their own patents as well), so don't hold your breath. (It *might* be possible
to present it as an amicus curiae (sp?) on a software patent case, but the odds
are low.)

A constitutional amendment is almost certainly not practical until the pain
becomes overwhelming. Congressional action would be *much* easier.

That leaves international treaty. If the EU holds the line on rejecting
software patents, then the next time they try to harmonize the US and EU patent
rules, we need the EU to win that particular point. Given the way that the US
has been the gorilla, pushing everyone else to do it the US's way, this approach
does not have high probability of success - but higher than any of the other
three approaches.

One person's view only...

MSS2

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Change them from an asset to a liability
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 11:38 PM EDT
There is now so much capital tied up in software patents that it will be
impossible to invalidate them short of having a revolution.

To make them go away they need to become a liability for the holder rather than
an asset. One possibility would be to publish an open source implementation of
each patent as soon as it is published by the patent office. If the rest of the
world can grab your idea and put it into their products faster than you can
there would not much incentive in patenting software.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )