|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
Kudos to Fraunhhofer for going easy on their rights then.
I had to look up aurolgy but could not find any significant meaning to it.
Suppose you also invested a lot of money (and or time) into similar and came up
with a neat solution.
All to waiste because someone else holds a patent.
Where is your reward ?
Also I wonder when something really great has been invented becasue of a yummy
patent reward in sight, how long it would have taken before someone else would
have come up with it, just out of scientific curiosity when there would not have
been patents. (and maybe cheaper because not having to compete on a non-natural
pace)
( for instance in a R&D lab or at a university )
( I understand at google people were alowed to work on projects in the
companies expense, while on private inspiration)
And on the notion "spending loads of money" means "reward is in
place":
when I spend a lot of money bringing sand to the desert, do I get a reward then
?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
I think there should be a kind of compensation for using research investments of
others. But that can not be by the actual patent system. A link to the invested
amount is needed and is missing in that patent system.
The patent system speaks of inventions. But every one making the same research
effort will probably come to the same or similar results. What invention?
Suppose the results of a research effort of a first company are in practise kept
secret. Hidden in vague, incomplete patent language. Hidden in the total mass of
patents. And somebody had to make the same effort giving similar results. There
is no reason he should pay that first company. He did not use their research.
He should not have to be afraid of getting a visit from a company, asking money
for something they found out. Like he should not be afraid of a visit from the
mafia, asking money for what he already owns.
No way a patent system can function without simplicity and clarity. And that is
completely missing know.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
Justice is rarely about absolutes. It's normally about striking a balance. For
every case where you find software patents "justified", I can point
out a thousand where the result is unjust.
The patent advocates have been told repeatedly to reform themselves. They have
failed to do so. We can only conclude that genuine reform is impossible.
Therefore, software patents should simply be abolished.
If practitioners in micro-electronics or biology feel they face similar
problems, they are welcome to contact us and discuss how to coordinate joint
efforts. However, what we know about is software, so that's what we concern
ourselves with for now.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
Don't forget dishonest lawyers who encourage this stuff, and make a huge pile of
money doing the litigation.
They should bear at least some of the blame.
---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ByteJuggler on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Authors of novels and other materials, and composers of music for example,
should and are also be rewarded for their creative efforts. We don't allow the
patenting of novels or music however. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- The research should be rewarded != it should be patentable. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 12:16 PM EDT
- The research should be rewarded != it should be patentable. - Authored by: albert on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:39 PM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: cjk fossman on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 05:45 PM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: albert on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:47 AM EDT
- I think YOU'RE confused. - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 05:24 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 07:14 AM EDT
- Er, right - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 08:07 AM EDT
- Well, maybe that's why you're confused - Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Monday, May 20 2013 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
And that one statement kills any patentability stone dead on the spot.
INVENTIONS can be patented, discoveries CAN'T. Discoveries fall under the
"laws of nature".
What would composers do if, taking the example there of music, do if I got a
patent on a perfect cadence? It's just a simple chord progression but if I can
patent mp3 why can't I patent a perfect cadence?
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 23 2013 @ 11:53 AM EDT |
Caveat: all bolding below mine for emphasis.
From §101 of US Patent
Law:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful
improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
The conditions include what is
not patentable as has been clearly outlined by the Supremes. From Bilski vs
Kappos (pdf page 9):
The Court's precedents provide three
specific exceptions to §101's broad patent-eligibility principles: "laws of
nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas."
So, first test
of patent eligibility, does "mp3 compression algorithm" fall into one of the
four patentable
areas:
process
machine
manufacture
composition of
matter
It certainly doesn't fall into machine, manufacture or a composition
of matter. It can be reasonably argued it falls within "process". So the next
test, the exceptions, is it composed only of:
law of nature
physical
phenomena
abstract ideas
An example of an abstract idea is the one the
Supreme Court raises the most, they raised it again in Mayo vs
Prometheus (pdf page 24):
And so the cases have endorsed a
bright-line prohibition against patenting laws of nature, mathematical
formulas and the like, which serves as a somewhat more easily administered
proxy for the underlying "building-block" concern.
As the Supremes
express:
The Court first explained that "[a] principle, in the
abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be
patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right." [snip] The
Court then held the application at issue was not a "process," but an
unpatentable abstract idea. "It is conceded that one may not patent an idea.
But in practical effect that would be the result if the formula for converting
... numerals to pure binary numerals were patented in this case." [snip] A
contrary holding "would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in
practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself."
Since
the MP3 compression algorithm is nothing more then a mathematical equation -
which even the Supreme's recognize is nothing more the an abstract concept - it
is not patent eligible subject matter.
And as a result: in my humble
opinion, a patent should never have been granted on it (assuming it was
granted).
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
