|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 10:41 AM EDT |
what you call strawman (1)
lot of money and or time is relative to the company size.
"Familiar with state of the art of the field" ?
Company A has no way of knowing what their competitor B is going to patent.
Otherwise it would be obvious to knowledgables in the field. (non-patentable)
Even if company A would have a clue about what company B
was going to patent (and or vice versa) their race leads to one winner and one
loser.
Or should one become the self apointed loser and stop wasting effort ?
Don't forget company A does not have to license to B.
Extra efforts have been made to work around patents where possible.
You may believe it is a strawman, but it is not.
what you call straw man (2)
What do you mean encouraging ? It is figure of speech.
It is about the pretention that heavy investment means "it is great,
therefore you owe us".
You may believe it is a straw man, but it is not.
Btw: If someone does not agree with you it does not mean automatically
"straw man".
Earlier completed research may be good, but *I wonder* how much sooner and if
that is worthwhile to the later unpatented, uncontroled, and therefor maybe
faster conveyed version.
(just wondering, not a straw man)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- aurology ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:18 AM EDT
- aurology ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- aurology ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:21 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
I can do a lot of research and find out that it's not patentable. That's my own
fault.
Also, you seem to assume that if it isn't patentable, it's not worth it. That is
very untrue.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Imaginos1892 on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:09 PM EDT |
Company B has somebody spend half an hour describing in
vague and general terms how they wish a piece of software
would work, and gets a patent. Its title is misleading,
its claims are written in an obscure dialect of legalese
understood only by patent lawyers, and it's buried in the
midst of thousands of other vague incomprehensible patents.
Company A has a team of programmers spend months actually
WRITING a piece of software that happens to do more or less
what Company B's patent kind of vaguely describes. They do
not know about the patent; even if they had the time and
money to spend searching for it, they wouldn't recognize
the claims as having anything to do with their work.
That's what Company B has been waiting for! They, who have
done no actual work and created nothing, sue Company A for
solving a problem they dreamed up. Company A now has a few
unpalatable choices: pay Danegeld and hope the Dane will go
away; abandon the project and write off all the resources
that went into it; spend years and millions fighting the
bogo-patent and hope the court has a clue.
------------------
Under Capitalism, man exploits man.
Under Communism, it's the other way around.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
