|
|
|
| Authored by: vadim on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
Wow, i've seen a geme there:
One question was:
"Do you understand why the areas of software & business patents are
such a strong area of anger/frustration/hate/$%#$@% for most
programmers and technology entrepreneurs? You can work you but off
and then someone with a legal background can extort you with some
overly broad, obvious, non-novel patent in the form of strangely written
document that is going to cost you a lot of money, that you don't have,
to fight.
Or another way to put it is, how can you justify software & business
patents when they have created a $29 billion market for lawyers easy
money that provides NO obvious benefit to society?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2091210
Also was wondering what you thought of this speech?
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_fre
e_culture.html"
And the guy (the patent examiner) answers it:
"It is going to be the companies that push for the patents, not so much
the lawyers in the companies. Even at larger companies I haven't seen
where the lawyers really had a say in whether a patent was applied for,
normally there will be some sort of review group that has a say as to
whether it goes forward or not.
I am not sure why you say it is a market for lawyers. Lawyers simply
work for the companies.
I think software patents and business method patents do need to be
further narrowed in what is allowed. Although I don't think they should
be completely gone.
Also was wondering what you thought of this speech?
She is very misleading. There can be protection, the industry as a whole
has opted to not take advantage of it. The main issue is that clothing
has a turnover of 1-2 years, which is pretty rare in other industries.
There is no point in going to court when by the time the case is finished
the clothing will be out of style.
I don't think she is right that new fashion is created by no protection, I
think new fashion is forced to keep the 1-2 year trend and keep
everyone else behind them because there is no protection."
The last phrase is basically saying the fashion industry has accelerated
innovation rate because of LACK of patent protection.
Excellent proof that patents are a CALAMITY for innovation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 10 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT |
What's the difference between:
""a plurality of heuristic modules, wherein: each heuristic module
corresponds to a respective area of search and employs a different,
predetermined heuristic algorithm"
and in plain English just putting it simply like:
searching different sources of data wherein you search each with a method that
makes sense for its contents
The former sounds very impressive and legalese, but when I try to convert it
back to English, it sounds basically as broad as simply "searching multiple
sources of data" as you put it.""
This was an Apple patent question that went unanswered. I also thought it was
interesting that the USPTO person gave such a low opinion of himself and
co-workers.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
