|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 05:15 AM EST |
Perhaps we need a more clear definition of software patents.
There are different layers of software and for those
different development tools are available. Distributing
those tools in an environment with patents is like selling a
Meccano with a list of items the kids may not build with it.
What's more the list is long, very hard to read and
understand, open for a lot of interpretation and what is in
it is not at all certain.
The USPTO should provide software than can be used as plugin
for development tools so developers are warned when they
risk using "patented technology". If the USPTO is not able
to do this, nobody can expect developers to know when they
use "patented technology". It is clear and simple then,
using patents like they are meant to be used, for software,
is just making software development impossible.
Of course there is an other hypocrite use for software
patents. As a weapon to be used against any competing
product. It will infringe anyway something. And it is mostly
open for those who can spend the costs, the big players. To
block innovation.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 08:49 AM EST |
I think we could have better luck helping the USPTO figure out the boundaries to
software patent claims. Software patents would not be that bad if the claims
were narrow enough to preserve the "right" to clean room reverse
engineering.
IMHO when analysing a software patent, claims covering more than a single
implementation somebody skilled in the art can devise should be rejected as too
broad.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 05:24 PM EST |
Yes they are illegal. However, the USPTO and the CAFC are determined to violate
the law and issue them anyway. So they do.
I laughed so hard at the 2011 description of what the USPTO "says" is
required for functional claims. They say one thing, then they issue patents
with broad functional claims that no sane person could ever believe fit their
supposed rules. The rules are just to trot out when someone complains. When it
comes time to issue patents, they just take the money and hand out the
monopolies.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
