|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 09:38 PM EDT |
What he is asking is it depends on what your asserting to
determine either which definition to use or how much of it
to use.
An example of such is Euthanasia, the definition can vary
depending on which side you view from.
This happens in Software all the time. It may be the same
idea, but expressed differently. A lot of terms used in
software are abstract.
I think if there is going to be software patents, I think
those software patents need to specify the detail of the
implementation (such as source code, ER diagrams, etc). This
is required in all other industries except software. I
believe this would solve a lot of the issues we are facing
with software patents.
I actually feel this biggest issue is the life of the
patent. 25 years is way too long. 25 years ago (1988)
Windows 3.1 wasn't even released (1992) and Windows 2.1
(1988) had its 25th birthday 9 days ago. we were still using
DOS. Does anyone still use Windows 3.1, DOS, or the
Commodore 64? TCP/IP wasn't even a common way of networking
computers in a LAN (although being officially standardised 6
years before (in 1982)), and the Internet was still being
built. If the life time of software patents was reduced, say
down to 2 years, then the impact of bad software patents
would be minimal, and the invested interests will focus on
innovating, rather than defending themselves. Also I believe
the court battles would be shorter and fewer.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
