|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
In the real world, software patents do nothing to foster innovation.
It's just the opposite.
I have personally never read a software patent for any purpose other than having
been warned "hey, we might infringe this crap if we're not careful"
and having to change my code to avoid the claimed ideas.
They add no benefit whatsoever. They are purely harmful to everyone except
patent lawyers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:32 PM EDT |
>and force cross-licensing.
That assumes that both sides thought the non-invention was worth wasting money
to patent.
I try not read patents, purely because of the threat of triple damages.
Especially when the patent is for non-inventions that were known years before
the patent was applied for. In more than one instance, I've seen software
patents granted in the late zeros, that didn't do anything different, or even
more sophisticated than the software I wrote on an Apple //e in the
mid-eighties. The idea within the software was not original with me.
As for forced sharing, where is the sharing when Intellectual Vultures, INC
comes a trolling, with their non=-patetns of pure mathemtical algoirthms.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jonathon on Monday, June 11 2012 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
>and force cross-licensing.
That assumes that both sides thought the non-invention was worth wasting money
to patent.
I try not read patents, purely because of the threat of triple damages.
Especially when the patent is for non-inventions that were known years before
the patent was applied for.
In more than one instance, I've seen software patents granted in the late zeros,
that didn't do anything different, or even more sophisticated than the software
I wrote on an Apple //e in the mid-eighties. The idea within the software was
not original with me. (Intellectual Vultures owns at least one of those
non-patents granted by the USPTO.)
As for forced sharing, where is the sharing when Intellectual Vultures, INC
comes a trolling, with their non-patents that are mathematical algorithms, and
not even original algorithms at that?
The way to solve the software patent issue is to go back to the rules that the
USPTO used in 1875. If there is no patent model, then no patent can be granted.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jimrandomh on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 06:25 PM EDT |
What I said was that this specific patent prevented innovation in this
specific
instance. Whether patents promote or inhibit innovation on net is a
factual
question, which depends on how common each type of story is. Since the
patent in
question was one you chose, it is not a cherry-picked example. I have
given you
evidence which suggests that software patents are bad more often than
you thought.
Please do not ignore it.
Swype's patent didn't "get new
ideas into the works". Seeing a demo of
Swype's published product did that, and
I believe the text of the patent added
nothing which I wouldn't have inevitably
reproduced (or produced something as
good) myself. I base this belief on
estimates that I came up with between when I
saw the demo, and when I found out
that there was a patent.
Trying to patent something and force Swype into
a cross-licensing deal is
laughably infeasible for me, and for pretty much any
small business or individual
inventor. The lead-time in getting from a patent
application to a patent is longer
than the total lifetime of most startups, the
costs of a court case are larger than the
total budget of most startups. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
