|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 03 2012 @ 09:30 PM EDT |
Very interesting points. I think you have convinced me that there are
fundamental differences between the area of genetics and software. In
particular, there is clearly a lot more overlap in software programs than there
is in genetics. That is, it sounds that it is virtually impossible to write a
software program these days without stepping on SOMEBODY'S IP. In contrast
with genetics, the fact that somebody has found an association between gene
A and disease X has essentially no impact on my ability to find an association
between gene B and disease Y.
As for the smartphone interface example, I knew that would cause some
issues given the current climate with Apple. Although, to be fair, my
understanding was that Apple does NOT have a patent over rectangles with
curved shapes or grids of icons, but rather a trade dress that related to a
fairly specific combination of the rectangles, size and shape of the icons, size
of the top and bottom bezels, smaller bezels on the sides, a silver/gray rim
around the front face of the device, a 4x4 icon grid on a black background
and a 1x4 launchbar on a silver/gray background. My understanding is that
smartphones can use a number of these features without infringing upon the
design patents; they simply cannot use all of these elements. That seems a far
cry from stating that Apple has a monopoly on rounded rectangles. If I'm
wrong and they can sue any manufacturer of a rounded rectangular device
that is obviously absurd.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "The problem is, how far
can
one go in protecting that "inspiration" without doing major damage to
an
entire society, an entire country, or an entire segment of the economy? "
This
seems to me the crux of the matter.
Perhaps the solution is to have different time scales of protection for
inspiration vs. methods. You get 17 years for a method, 17 months for an
idea (inspiration). Both the methods and ideas would be subject to 'prior art'
(prior concept) and 'non-obvious' tests. Even in the fast moving genetics and
computer industries, 17 months isn't that long, esp. considering that your
competitors can start working on their versions of the implementation during
those 17 months. Just a thought...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
