Linked by weildish on Sat 24th Jan 2009 22:44 UTC
Permalink for comment 345449
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
Harmful means that by being far too vague, most patents in the computer/software industry tend to stifle smaller companies that come up with different solutions that look alike.
As far as I'm concerned, a patent should only be granted if the applicant can show a working example of the idea he's trying to patent. That prototype must be delivered alongside the patent. The patent is only applicable to the specific implementation employed by the prototype.
Tying a patent to a prototype this way makes patents much more specific, and less harmful because competing companies would have a much better idea of what the patent covers, and what not.
Patents are not harmful. Intentionally vague patents without working prototypes are.
Edited 2009-01-25 21:13 UTC